Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death, on active service, of Lieutenant Peter Thorp Eckersley, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, late Member for the Borough of Manchester (Exchange Division), and desire to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE WAR MATERIAL (JAPAN).

Mr. Mander: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to continue the supply of oil and other articles required for war purposes from British sources to Japan in view of the refusal of such supplies to China by the closing of the Burma Road; and whether the action of the United States of America Government in prohibiting the export of oil to Japan will be borne in mind in this connection; and what proposals for the export of Empire products generally to Japan are under consideration?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Butler): I have no statement to make at present on the first two points raised by the hon. Member. As to the third, I would refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Economic Warfare on 6th August to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker).

Mr. Mander: Does the Minister realise that the continuous supply to Japan of raw materials would be a sanction for aggression and would be helping the aggressor? Is it the intention to do that?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Member may be satisfied that every aspect of this question is in mind.

Mr. Mander: But are the Government doing anything about it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will not the Government consider adopting the principle of the United States, because it is vital, in view of the possibility of a long war, that we ourselves should build up all possible stocks of these materials for our own needs?

Mr. Butler: Our own needs are the paramount consideration of His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — BALTIC STATES.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of men and women of British nationality at present in the former territories of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia; and whether the question of their repatriation is being considered?

Mr. Butler: The numbers of British subjects in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are 148, 170 and 85, respectively. Plans for their repatriation in case of need are in hand.

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communication His Majesty's Government have received from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics about gold balances in this country belonging to the States of Lithuania, Lettland and Estonia, recently absorbed into the Soviet Union?

Mr. Butler: His Majesty's Government are at present considering the representations of the Soviet Government in which they raise objection to the prohibition imposed by Order-in-Council on the transfer of the gold lying in the Bank of England to the account of the three Baltic States. The Soviet point of view is being carefully considered in the light of the various important political, financial and legal considerations involved.

Mr. Price: Will the fate of these gold balances be considered as part of a general commercial agreement with the U.S.S.R., if such be come to in the future?

Mr. Butler: I think we must take it that these Baltic questions provide a problem of their own. We have our point of view and our interests, but I do not see why some settlement should not be arrived at.

Mr. Shinwell: Has there not been a very long delay in coming to a decision?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir; I do not think so.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Would not the handing back of these balances be "helping the aggressor," in the words of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

Oral Answers to Questions — DANES, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any steps are being taken to contact, and organise, the services of the Danes in this country who are anxious to help Great Britain in the prosecution of the war?

Mr. Butler: The value of the hon. Member's suggestion is realised, but I can say no more than that the Government welcome assistance from all quarters in the prosecution of the war.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Minister aware that a responsible committee consisting of Danes has been set up for this purpose, and will he give that committee such help as he can?

Mr. Butler: I have given an answer to the hon. Member's Question. I am aware of the organisation to which he refers and the work which it is doing.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (FOOD SUPPLIES FROM ABROAD).

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the nature of the communication which he has received from the Government of the United States of America in regard to letting food supplies through the blockade to the unoccupied part of France?

Mr. Butler: My Noble Friend has received no communication of the kind referred to. At the same time the hon. Member may take it that His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the United States Government upon matters such as this.

Mr. Mander: Will the Minister make it clear that the feeding of the populations of Europe depends entirely upon Hitler and no one else?

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH SAILORS AND FISHER MEN, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. Price: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken to enable French refugee sailors of the mercantile marine and fishermen, who are now in this country, to secure a livelihood, and to assist in the Allied cause?

Mr. Butler: Arrangements have been made for those French sailors who are willing to continue to serve in their own ships to do so, sailing under the British and French flags, receiving the same pay and working in the same conditions as British seamen. Many have accepted these conditions, though others have opted to return to France and are now awaiting repatriation. Every effort is being made to enable French fishermen now in this country to go to sea and fish from their own vessels, thus contributing to the nation's supplies of food.

Mr. Price: Has every effort been made to represent to these sailors how much it is possible for them to help the Allied cause? Is every effort being made to put that point of view to them?

Mr. Butler: I think they realise that, and I am glad to say that many of them are offering to do so. Others, however, have opted to return to their own country.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (WIRELESS OPERATORS, TRAINING FEE).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware of the hardship caused to a number of men who responded to a Government appeal in April to train as wireless operators for the Mercantile Marine, and who are now informed that no vacancies exist when they have qualified, but that they may either volunteer for or be conscripted into the Royal Air Force as wireless operators; whether he is aware that many of these men, not possessing the £25 necessary for the course at the College of Wireless Telegraphy, borrowed the necessary money; and will he take steps to en-


sure that qualified students accepted into the Royal Air Force are reimbursed the £25 expended on their training?

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Shipping on this matter, and it the hon. Member will put down his Question again next week, I shall hope to be able to give him a considered reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADMIRALTY SPECIFICATIONS (RECOVERED RUBBER).

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider whether, in Admiralty specifications, recovered rubber could be used instead of new rubber as the stocks of recovered rubber are considerable, the prices much cheaper, and a percentage of recovered rubber is found by most manufacturers to give equally satisfactory results for a large variety of purposes?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Sir Victor Warrender): The matter has already been fully and carefully considered, but as recovered rubber does not meet requirements for hull or insulation purposes in His Majesty's ships it has not been thought desirable to make use of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (BRITISH COMMODITIES).

Mr. Ammon: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why certain commodities available for export from Great Britain, and for which export licences are provided, are refused admission to Nigeria; is he aware that such a policy, in addition to hampering trade between this country and the Colonies, gives rise to an erroneous and dangerous impression that Britain is in need of food and is going to make the Colonies go short; and will action be taken to remedy this serious state of affairs?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): A short time ago all Colonial Governments were requested to economise to the utmost extent possible on imports of foodstuffs from the United Kingdom in the interests of conserving food stocks, and preventing unessential traffic through United Kingdom

ports. This has given rise to some misunderstanding on the part of Colonial Governments, but the whole matter is now under active consideration with a view to the immediate removal of any unnecessary obstacles to our trade with the Colonial Dependencies.

Mr. Ammon: My hon. Friend will recognise that there is something which shows a lack of co-ordination when the Minister of Labour is appealing at the same time for exports?

Mr. Hall: That is a consideration with which my noble Friend is now dealing, and I am sure active steps will be taken for removing obstacles.

Oral Answers to Questions — NYASALAND (NATIVE LABOUR).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the drainage of native manhood from Nyasaland to other territories continues; has consideration been given to the social and economic results; what arrangement for recruitment exists with South Africa and also Southern Rhodesia; how many Africans were transferred each year; and whether statistics are available of the number who return to the Colony, and the average period of their absence in the past three years?

Mr. George Hall: As the reply is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is time reply:

The supply of labour in Nyasaland greatly exceeds the requirements of the Protectorate, and so far as I am aware, there has been no diminution in the numbers of natives who leave the Protectorate for employment in other Territories. The question of the migration of labour is kept under constant review, with particular regard to its effect on the social and economic welfare of the Protectorate. The aim of the Government is to secure that the native shall be free to work as he wishes either as an individual producer within the Protectorate or as a wage earner in Nyasaland or beyond its borders, subject to statutory safeguards of the conditions of employment.

As regards recruitment for South Africa, this is governed, so far as work on the


Rand is concerned, by an arrangement with the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, Limited, with which it has been agreed that up to 8,500 natives of Nyasaland may be allowed to work on the Rand at any one time. The natives are recruited in the Protectorate under proper safeguards. As regards Southern Rhodesia, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware that an agreement was signed in 1937 between the Governments of Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (known as the Salisbury Agreement) providing for the control of the flow of labour between these Territories, including medical examination of migrants, the issue of Identity Certificates, provision of rest camps, dispensaries, etc., Recruiting in Nyasaland is conducted in accordance with the recent International Labour Convention on the subject, which has been applied to the Protectorate. An Ordinance for this purpose was enacted in 1939.

Since November, 1937, an Administrative Officer has been stationed at Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia, to act as Nyasaland Labour Officer. An Officer has also been appointed to watch the interests of Nyasaland natives employed in the Rand Mines and to assist the Governments of the Union and of the Protectorate in regard to Nyasaland labour questions generally. His offices are in Johannesburg. These officers form part of the staff of the Nyasaland Labour Department. The number of Nyasaland natives who emigrated to South Africa in 1939 was 9,061; and 11,847 returned during that year. The number of Nyasaland natives who emigrated to Southern Rhodesia was 28,496; and 26,379 returned from that Territory.

No statistics regarding the average periods of absence are available, but in the case of the Rand mines the worker normally remains at work for about 12 months and then returns home to rest. As regards the Rhodesias, one of the provisions of the Salisbury Agreement is that emigrant natives in general should return to their homes after working for an economic period not exceeding two years. I am sending my hon. Friend copies of the Annual Reports of the Nyasaland Labour Department for the years 1938 and 1939, which contain detailed information on the labour position generally.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA (CONSTITUTION).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the consideration of the Constitution of Jamaica, political reform will be instituted as recommended by the Royal Commission Report, before the next general election in that Colony?

Mr. George Hall: The question of constitutional reform in Jamaica is at present under consideration, and I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the matter.

Mr. Creech Jones: How soon will my hon. Friend be able to make such a statement?

Mr. Hall: As soon as we hear from the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (NATIVE POLITICAL ASSOCIATIONS).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which native political associations in Kenya have been declared illegal; whether they were considered subversive; and what evidence exists in support of this view?

Mr. George Hall: In exercise of the powers conferred upon him by the Penal Code, the Governor of Kenya in Council has declared:

(a) the Kikuyu Central Association (1938),
(b) the Ukamba Members Association, and
(c) the Teita Hills Association

to be societies dangerous to the good government of the Colony. As regards the third part of the Question, a report is awaited from the Governor.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

TROOP TRAINS (TOWELS).

Mr. Sloan: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company have issued instructions to their staff that towels are to be placed only in first-class lavatories of troop trains; and whether he will take steps to have this discrimination removed?

The Minister of Transport (Sir John Reith): The company inform me that there is a general and serious shortage of


towels, and that stocks available do not allow of supply in third-class lavatories on troop trains, and only in limited numbers when available in first-class.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the railway companies be able to put towels in third-class lavatories when they have this rise in fares again?

Mr. Sloan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the railway companies will be able to overcome the difficulties and supply troops with towels in the lavatories?

Sir J. Reith: No, Sir; I am sorry I cannot. I have no idea.

MOTOR VEHICLES (CAMOUFLAGE).

Mr. Butcher: asked the Minister of Transport whether he desires private motorists to camouflage their motor-cars; and, if so, whether he will give guidance as to how this is to be done to distinguish them from Service vehicles?

Sir J. Reith: An Order was made that from 26th August no vehicle should be camouflaged to resemble a camouflaged Service vehicle. Where this has been done it should be undone. If owners wish to make their cars less conspicuous, glossy surfaces and light colours should be avoided, also Service grey or khaki.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Is the Minister aware that in South Berkshire there are many red lorries carrying petrol and inflammable materials? Does he not think they ought to be camouflaged? All my constituents are anxious about it.

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir. I should like to make it clear that I do think such lorries might well be camouflaged. The Order referred to puts a veto only on the camouflage of cars to resemble camouflaged Service cars.

Mr. Stokes: Who is the Minister's adviser to the Ministry on de-camouflaging camouflage?

Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon: Will my right hon. Friend make these Orders as Orders-in-Council, so that they can come before Parliament occasionally, because some are irksome and others rather fatuous?

Mr. Granville: Is the Minister aware that the motoring public have not the

slightest idea what they are to do at the present time?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir, I know there is some confusion, and I should like, if I may, to consult with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information on the subject.

CHEAP TRAVEL FACILITIES (PARENTS OF EVACUATED CHILDREN).

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Transport why it was found necessay to cancel a number of special trains with cheap return fares for parents of child evacuees during June and July; and whether he will ensure that adequate cheap-fare facilities are provided for all such parents in the future?

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the lack of cheap travel facilities to enable parents to visit children billeted in the various parts of the London reception area is causing parents great anxiety; and, as many of the children have already returned on this account, will he consider an assured service either by rail or coach, say once every three months, which would meet all requirements?

Sir J. Reith: It was necessary to cancel the special cheap rail facilities for parents visiting their children in reception areas partly because of the transport of troops and other movements to put this country in a position of defence and partly because of the numbers of children being moved to new areas. I hope it may be possible to provide some cheap facilities towards the end of this month, but that must depend on the military situation. Details will be announced later.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware of the great concern of parents who have found it impossible to get the necessary facilities to visit their children, and will he take every step to ensure that nothing is left undone to enable parents to visit their children?

Sir J. Reith: Yes, Sir; I know how much parents wish to visit their children, and facilities will be restored wherever possible as soon as possible.

TRAIN SERVICE, GOUROCK—GLASGOW.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware


of the inadequacy of the train service between Gourock, Greenock and Glasgow and vice versa; and whether he will take the appropriate steps to have the service adequately augmented?

Sir J. Reith: The morning and evening workmen's service on this line is being augmented as from 19th August.

Mr. Gibson: Does my right hon. Friend mean "workmen only" trains?

Sir J. Reith: I mean workmen's special trains. There will be two trains in the morning and two trains at night extra.

Mr. Gibson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the evening Gourock trains arriving at Greenock Central are already full, and that when they get to Bishopston workmen are left on the station and are unable to get to Glasgow?

Sir J. Reith: I think that that matter is taken care of by the fact that there will be two extra trains morning and evening.

Mr. Maxton: Will seamen coming off the ships be regarded as entitled to travel on these workers' trains, and will the Minister consider the fact that there is a tremendous number of seamen travelling from Greenock to Glasgow not normally at the time when workers' trains are running?

Sir J. Reith: I will look into that matter.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the continued high rate of deaths on the roads in spite of the reduced number of vehicles; and what further action he proposes taking in the matter?

Sir J. Reith: Under existing conditions a substantial reduction in the number of road accidents can only be secured by the exercise of greater care by all road users. A further road safety publicity campaign will be undertaken in the autumn.

Mr. Gledhill: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the figures prove that speed alone is not the main factor causing road accidents?

TOLL-GATE CHARGES (ARMED FORCES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in connection with the tollgate charges at present imposed by the four main line railway companies and others privately owned or owned partially by syndicates, he will introduce legislation to cancel for the duration of the war any charges which would normally be incurred by officers and men of His Majesty's Forces, whether on foot or on motor vehicles, proceeding in the execution of their duties?

Sir J. Reith: Under the Army Act, 1881, and the Air Force Act, 1917, officers and men proceeding on duty along or over any road or bridge are exempt from payment of tolls levied by virtue of any Act of Parliament. As to any private tolls, I do not propose to introduce legislation requiring exemption, which anyhow would benefit the Exchequer and not the individual officer or man.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not inexcusable that members of His Majesty's Forces should have to pay tolls in the execution of their duty in order to cross private land, and ought not this sort of thing really to be rectified?

Colonel Arthur Evans: Do the Home Guard come under the Act which my right hon. Friend mentioned? If so, is he aware that a few days ago a member of the Home Guard, while travelling on a toll road to Cardiff, was fined 10s., or alternatively seven days' imprisonment, and will he take steps to have this state of affairs remedied?

Sir J. Reith: The Home Guard does come under the Army Act to which I referred. I said that that Act and the corresponding Air Force Act excuse officers and men on duty from any tolls levied by an Act of Parliament. I did not say that such exemption applied to private tolls.

Colonel Evans: In that case will my right hon. Friend take what steps are necessary to see that it does apply?

Sir Herbert Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take care that soldiers on duty have a free issue of Evesham plums?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the landowners that these people are protecting them and


that there is no reason why they should pay the tolls?

Sir J. Reith: I do not think there is any case where a private toll paid by an officer or man has not been refunded by his headquarters.

Mr. De la Bère: The matter is thoroughly unsatisfactory. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION.

FILMS.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: asked the Minister of Information how many short films to illustrate the national war effort have so far been produced under the auspices of the Ministry; how many of them have been released; and what steps are being taken to shorten the delay between production and release?

The Minister of Information (Mr. Duff Cooper): The answer to the first part of the Question is 31 and to the second part 17, and a further seven are about to be released. The remaining films are no longer suitable for release owing to changed conditions. Every effort is being made to shorten delay between production and release, and in the case of a recent film, "Men of the Lightship," release in London was effected four days after its completion.

Mr. Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman now thoroughly satisfied that no more films will have to be scrapped because of the delay between production and distribution?

Mr. Cooper: I think so.

PUBLIC OPINION (TESTS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether he will consider the advisability of conducting a series of tests of public opinion in selected constituencies through their Members o Parliament, as an alternative or addition to methods at present employed?

Mr. Cooper: I am always grateful for the co-operation of hon. Members, and if any hon. Member is prepared to give the necessary time to work of this kind, I shall be glad if he will communicate with me.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand from the reply that if a sufficient number of Members send in their names, the right hon. Gentleman will be willing to put into operation a scheme of this kind?

Mr. Cooper: I will gladly go into it with any hon. Member who wishes to co-operate.

Mr. Lawson: What is the need for these tests of public opinion? Why cannot the people be trusted?

Commander Bower: Is it not time we came to the conclusion that the people of this country have guts?

"VOICE OF SPAIN."

Sir A. Knox: asked the Minister of Information why the export permit of a publication called the "Voice of Spain" has been restored?

Mr. Cooper: The licence under which the "Voice of Spain" can be exported was restored on an undertaking by the editor to submit the paper for censorship before publication and not to export the paper to Spain.

Sir A. Knox: Is it not rather unsound at the present time to facilitate the circulation abroad of a journal that consistently attacks the present Government of Spain?

Mr. Silverman: Is it not desirable that the "Voice of Spain" should be heard in Spain?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In view of the shortage of paper, would it not be possible to prevent this publication being sent to people who do not want it?

Miss Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the "Voice of Spain" is an extremely valuable source of information to those who want to follow the movements of public opinion in Spain?

LOCAL INFORMATION COMMITTEES.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Information what are the present, and prospective, duties and functions of the Local Information Committees set up by his Department; whether he is aware that there is apprehension that these committees will in some ways usurp the functions of the local authorities; and will he make a statement on the matter?

Mr. Cooper: Local Information Committees are intentionally without precisely defined functions. They are a valuable and voluntary link between the Ministry of Information and the inhabitants of places where they have been set up, and they assist the Ministry as seems best to them in any and every form of local publicity towards winning the war, namely, in organising anti-waste or anti-rumour campaigns, in arranging public meetings, in the showing of films otherwise than in public cinemas, in helping to entertain distinguished allied visitors, and generally in heartening the cooperative spirit of the people. I have no fear that these committees will usurp the functions of local authorities. In the great majority of instances representatives of local authorities are included among their membership, and in all cases close contact with the local authority is maintained.

Mr. Griffiths: Do I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that these committees will not in any circumstances be used to fulfil any of the functions normally fulfilled by elected representatives of the people or local authorities?

Mr. Cooper: Yes, Sir.

Mr. T. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear which bodies are entitled to be represented on these committees, in view of what has taken place in one or two districts?

Mr. Cooper: I should not like to give a list of the bodies without preparation, but all local bodies are entitled to be represented if they make their wishes known.

Major Milner: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the bulletins issued by local information bureaus are circulated to Members of Parliament in the areas of the committees?

Mr. Cooper: Certainly, Sir.

Loss OF STEAMSHIP "ACCRA."

Sir H. Williams: asked the Minister of Information the reason for the delay in making the public announcement of the sinking of the "Accra," having regard to the fact that the news was widely known in this country many days before the announcement?

Mr. Cooper: It is contrary to the policy of His Majesty's Government to

announce the loss of individual merchant ships. But in the present case there was no reason for withholding the news of the loss of the "Accra" after news of the loss had been published in the U.S.A.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that the loss of this ship was well known in this country for at least eight days before publication of news of the sinking, does he not think that delay would cause considerable anxiety to relatives of those on board?

Mr. Cooper: It may have been well known in this country, but we did not want to publish it to Germany.

WAR-TIME SOCIAL SURVEY.

Captain Bellenger: asked the Minister of Information whether questions on the adequacy of, and manner of dealing with, applications for supplementary old age pensions have been, or will be included in the investigations of the social survey conducted by his Department?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.

Captain Bellenger: In view of the considerable information which is apparently in the possession of Members of Parliament on this subject, and which Members think ought to be brought to the notice of His Majesty's Government, will the right hon. Gentleman put some of these questions to his inquisitors who are now going round to try and find out this information?

Mr. Cooper: This is a matter which concerns another Department of State, and I should not take any steps to interfere with its work.

Captain Bellenger: On what basis are these social surveys carried out? Who sets the questions on which the people go round to find out information?

Mr. Cooper: All that was very fully explained in the statement which was made a fortnight ago, and I cannot go into the whole facts now.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that the Minister's "snoopers" would not get through one street a day if they were inquiring about old age pensions?

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Information whether he will make arrangements for hon. Members interested to have an opportunity of meeting the


investigators in the employ of the Wartime Social Survey?

Mr. Cooper: As I have explained to the House, these investigators are not appointed by the Ministry of Information, but I should be glad to put the hon. Member in touch with the senior officials of the War-time Social Survey.

Mr. Mander: Is that invitation extended to any Members of the House who may desire to meet them?

Mr. Cooper: Certainly.

Mr. Gledhill: asked the Minister of Information whether the house-to-house investigations conducted by his Department have yet been completed; whether a report on the findings will be issued; and, if so, when?

Mr. Cooper: War-time Social Survey makes continuous surveys, and the results are, as I have already said, available to Members at the Ministry of Information.

PRESS ARRANGEMENTS.

Mr. Granville: asked the Minister of Information whether, as a result of his recent meeting with representatives of the Press, it is his intention to make any change in the existing arrangements for the handling of news between his Department and the Press?

Mr. Cooper: No, Sir.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that the morale of the people is magnificent and that they wish to be given the full facts, whether good or bad?

POLISH NEWSPAPER.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Information what material or organisational aid is being given by His Majesty's Government to the newspaper "Dziennik Polski," published in London as the official mouthpiece of the Polish Government?

Mr. Cooper: Facilities have been given for the purchase by this newspaper of the necessary newsprint. Otherwise no "material or organisational aid" is being given by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that this newspaper represents a Government

that is carrying on war against the Soviet Union, does not the Minister consider it desirable to cut off all connection with it, in view of the claim made by His Majesty's Government that they are trying to develop friendly relations with the Soviet Government?

"AIR CHALLENGE AND THE LOCUSTS."

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware of the ban on the export of a book called "Air Challenge and the Locusts"; and whether he can explain it?

Mr. Cooper: There is at present no ban on the export of "Air Challenge and the Locusts."

BRITISH PRISONERS OF WAR.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Information whether he has now considered the method of giving publicity to the lists of British prisoners of war emanating from German sources without advertising the German wireless, and with what result?

Mr. Cooper: Immediately after my assurance to the hon. and gallant Member on 31st July, a request which was at once complied with was made to the Press to substitute the phrase "German source" for "German Radio." There has been little time as yet to judge of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

DETENTION SENTENCES.

Mr. Cecil Wilson: asked the Attorney-General under what statutory authorities courts of summary jurisdiction have recently imposed sentences of detention without limit as to the length thereof?

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): If the hon. Gentleman will send me particulars of the sentences to which he refers, I will look into the matter and communicate with him.

PRISONERS OF WAR AND INTERNEES (DOMINIONS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether official representatives of the Home Office have been or are to be sent to overseas internment centres to act as liaison officers between British and


Dominion Governments in respect of internees; and whether articles and cash left by internees before their departure overseas have now been forwarded to their owners?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): The answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. The War Office have sent a liaison officer to Canada, who will, it is hoped, be able to some extent to act in this capacity, both as regards prisoners of war and internees, but, having regard to the comparatively small number of internees sent to Australia, I do not think there is any necessity, at present at all events, for a liaison officer there. As regards the last part of the Question, I understand that steps have been and are being taken by the War Office in regard to this.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not highly desirable that the Home Office, as the Department responsible for the internal management of these camps, should have a representative in Canada at least, and possibly in Australia, to try to get the camps there to correspond to the camps in this country?

Mr. Peake: We have, of course, sent very full instructions for the guidance of the Dominion Governments; and we are sending out full particulars in regard to each internee.

Mr. Sorensen: Do they make special inquiries with regard to the cash that these internees have?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that 22 married men internees voluntarily left the Isle of Man camp on 10th July, under a guarantee given to them that their interned wives in Port Erin would accompany them in the same convoy; whether this promise was kept; if not, whether these wives have since been sent overseas to join their husbands; whether he is aware that correspondence sent to internees five weeks ago, before they departed overseas, has not yet been acknowledged; and whether he can say what is the approximate length of time that must elapse between the despatch of correspondence and its delivery to internees in Canada?

Mr. Peake: I would refer to the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey). The married internees to whom the hon. Member refers went to Australia, not Canada, and no guarantee was given that their wives would accompany them in the same convoy. I will make inquiries as regards the points raised in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the hon. Member say when he is likely to get the information?

Mr. Peake: Arrangements have been already made for speeding up communication between the internees and their friends outside; but it is exceedingly difficult at present to give any accurate estimate of the time which it will take for a letter to go from this country to Canada, and for an answer to come back.

Miss Rathbone: Is the Minister aware that about 250 of these wives and children, who were brought to London at the request of the Home Office, are still awaiting permission to join their husbands in Australia; and can he hurry the sending of the next convoy to Australia?

Mr. Peake: I will do all I can in that respect.

IDENTITY CARDS (VAGRANTS).

Captain Strickland: asked the Home Secretary what steps have been taken to enforce the bearing of identity cards by all vagrants; and what steps are taken to impose penalties on vagrants not carrying such cards?

Mr. Peake: Chief officers of police have been advised that, in the existing situation, the police should exercise their powers under Section 6 of the National Registration Act, 1939, to require members of the public to produce their registration cards. My right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health on the question whether any special steps need to be taken with regard to vagrants.

Captain Strickland: Are the Department giving full consideration to the grave public danger arising from the present rather inadequate supervision of vagrancy?

Mr. Peake: Perhaps I might inform my hon. and gallant Friend that the Security


Services do not regard vagrants as being a class of persons in regard to whom special attention is necessary.

Captain Strickland: Is my hon. Friend aware that at present vagrants can go about the country not necessarily under any control whatever?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir. But vagrants automatically incur the attention of the police and others.

Mr. Radford: Would it not be the easiest thing for German spies to dress themselves as vagrants?

ANTI-NAZI REFUGEES.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary approximately how many persons, certified by tribunals to be refugees from Nazi oppression, are now in detention by his authority; how many applications by such persons for release remain undetermined; and whether he has appointed a special staff to expedite the release of persons entitled to such release?

Mr. Peake: Approximately 13,000 persons now interned in this country were classified as refugees. Applications for release of persons coming within the categories of eligibility are dealt with irrespective of whether or not the applicant is a refugee, and separate statistics are not available of applications made by refugees. The staff of the Aliens Department of the Home Office has been augmented in order to deal with applications for release as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Mander: Is the hon. Member aware that there are two men in the uniform of the Pioneer Corps who have come back from France, who are still in Huyton Camp? Ought they not to be let out at once?

Mr. Peake: I think I had better make some inquiries.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Member aware that some internees who have been re leased from Pentonville Prison expected to be sent to camps or to be released, and that they have been sent to Liverpool Prison?

Mr. Peake: Those are not the type of internees to which this Question refers.

LIFE INSURANCE (ARMED FORCES).

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Attorney-General whether he is aware that in the life policies of certain insurance companies there are clauses exempting the companies from liability if death occurs while the insured person is a member of His Majesty's Forces; that such exemption is independent of the question whether the circumstances are such that pensions will be payable by the Government to dependants of the deceased; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter.

The Attorney-General: It would be impracticable for the Government to base its Pensions Scheme on the principle of providing a pension in all cases in which an exemption clause contained in the contract between an assured and an assurance company was operative. Apart from the principle involved, it may well be that such clauses take different forms. It is hoped that if any difficulties such as that suggested arise out of war circumstances, insurance companies will deal sympathetically with them. The Board of Trade and the Industrial Assurance Commissioner, whichever is appropriate, are ready to consider such cases if they are brought to their notice and get in touch with the insurance companies concerned.

Mr. Silverman: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered how far such a clause is against public policy?

The Attorney-General: No, Sir, I have not considered that, but prima facie I should think that an insurance company, as a matter of contract, was entitled to exclude, broadly speaking, war risks, and, of course, to take a smaller premium on account of excluding those risks.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

ANTI-TANK MEASURES.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether His Majesty's Government are taking the fullest advantage of the presence in this country of men with experience of antitank weapons and tactics in the Spanish war by employing them as instructors with the Army and Home Guards in antitank training?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for War (Sir Edward Grigg): All possible advantage is being taken of every form of experience in previous wars gained by individuals in this country.

Captain Bellenger: May I ask whether the Government are interested in or are taking any active part in the private school which I understand has been set up in a certain spot not far from London to teach ways of immobilising tanks according to the methods which were used in the Spanish war?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir, great interest is being taken in it.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the considered opinion of a large number of men who fought in France that if the war experience of the Spanish refugees had been taken advantage of to instruct our men in France, they could readily have delayed the German tanks, and why is it that these refugees have instead been kept in concentration camps?

Sir E. Grigg: Of course, I cannot answer a question about why these men have been detained, but I think the experience in Spain has been taken very fully into account.

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Gentleman say that the Government fully recognise the use of the school in question?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can the Minister assure us that every effort is being made to make use of the services of men, both British and Spanish, who had experience of the Spanish war?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir.

HOME GUARD.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is intended to give more extensive and intensive training to the Home Guard in the use of hand grenades; and what measures have been taken to ensure that good supplies are available for them under responsible local control?

Sir E. Grigg: My right hon. Friend is not prepared to make any public statement on this subject.

AUXILIARY MILITARY PIONEERS' CAMP, GLASGOW.

Mr. Naylor: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state the result of his inquiries into the conditions prevailing at the Auxiliary Military Pioneers' camp at Nits-hill, Glasgow?

Sir E. Grigg: Yes, Sir. Full inquiries have been made and show that, in spite of initial difficulties, the unit has succeeded in making a very satisfactory camp. No complaints have come to notice; food, health and discipline are good; and, as regards the reference in my hon. Friend's previous Question to insulting censures on the men by a major, whose name he subsequently gave me, no officer of that name has been at the camp, nor can any trace of such an incident be discovered. The Lord Provost of Glasgow has paid a surprise visit to the camp, and is reported to have pronounced it to be one of the best camps in Scotland.

Mr. Naylor: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the inquiries extended to the rank and file of the regiment as well as to the officers responsible for the administration?

Sir E. Grigg: Of course, Sir.

PALESTINIAN COMPANIES.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War whether persons enlisting in Palestinian units will be required to serve outside Palestine and not merely in their own country?

Sir E. Grigg: The terms of enlistment in Palestinian companies of units of the British Army have not yet been settled.

FRESH VEGETABLES.

Colonel Carver: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the abundance of fresh vegetables now available and the lack of marketing facilities for such commodities, he will arrange for supplies to be taken for Army use to the reduction of the use of tinned vegetables; and whether, in the case of growers who have large unmarketable stocks, he can state how they can get in touch with local War Office caterers?

Sir E. Grigg: As regards the first part of the Question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given


yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Sir E. Bennett). With regard to the second part, the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables for troops' messing is made through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, and application should be made to the Surveyor of Supplies, Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, Colquhoun House, 5, Broad-wick Street, W.1. In addition, local competitive contracts are made by commands for supply to hospitals, and, in regard to these, growers should get into touch with the headquarters of commands.

HARVESTING ASSISTANCE.

Colonel Carver: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the ingathering of the harvest, any arrangements have been made for farmers to apply for assistance from troops in their vicinity; and whether, as immediate action is necessary, he will give such instructions as may be necessary?

Sir E. Grigg: My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it would be very difficult in present circumstances to release troops from their military duties, but the question is being examined.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Will the Minister give preference to men in the Army whose fathers are farmers and who desire that their sons should go back to the harvest?

Sir E. Grigg: The whole question of how military labour is to be made available to farmers is being considered. I do not think I can go further than that.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister obtain the use of bank directors for assisting farmers?

MAJOR A. D. WINTLE.

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War why Major A. D. Wintle, M.C., Royal Dragoons, was confined to the Tower of London on 22nd June, but no charge was preferred against him until 7th August?

Sir E. Grigg: Instructions were sent from the War Office to Western Command on 20th June that Major Wintle was to be placed under close arrest charged under Section 41 of the Army Act with committing a civil offence, that is to say, assault. Major Wintle was arrested on 21st June, and was informed that he was charged under Section 41 of the Army Act with committing a civil offence. He

was brought to London and was informed on 23rd June that the civil charge would be one of assault. As the result of investigation, the Department of the Judge Advocate-General advised that certain new charges should be added. These involved the collection of statements from other officers and took a little time. Major Wintle was furnished with the complete charge-sheet and abstract of evidence on 7th August. The court-martial had been provisionally summoned for 12th August. On 9th August it was postponed till 19th August and later till 26th August, at Major Wintle's request. The new charges are of feigning infirmity and of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline. I should add that Major Wintle's personal courage has never been in question. The charges relate entirely to grave breaches of discipline.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman really sure that the charge was presented to Major Wintle, as he seems to have been entirely unaware of it? Further, is he aware that Major Wintle has suffered from a defect of the eye for a long time, and that to say otherwise is not fair to the man?

Sir E. Grigg: With regard to the first part of the question, I am quite satisfied that the information was given to him as stated. As to the second part of the question, as the charge is sub judice, I think I had better not deal with it.

AGRICULTURE (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Prime Minister whether, in collaboration with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Agriculture, he will convene a meeting of the principal bankers throughout the country with a view to the creation of an agricultural credit bank?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. In view of the credit facilities which are already available to farmers, I think such a proposal is unnecessary.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not realise that this matter cannot be lightly dismissed, indeed that it cannot be dismissed at all? Someone must initiate a beginning, and will not my right hon. Friend "Go to it"?

Mr. Wilfrid Roberts: Has the right hon. Gentleman satisfied himself that there is


not a widespread demand among farmers for credit facilities?

Mr. Attlee: According to my information, there are already sufficient facilities.

Mr. De la Bère: Are there not 500,000 borrowers who want these credits? Why not do in the national interest what 500,000 people want?

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

VITAMINISED FLOUR.

Mr. Leach: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he will state the substances from which the vitamin to be added to flour is obtained?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): The vitamin, which is derived from many different substances, is composed mainly of the atoms of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, but the process by which these atoms are linked together so as to be in the same form as that in which they occur in nature is an extremely complicated one.

Mr. Leach: Is the Minister aware that there are many medical men in this House who are very sceptical about this device?

Mr. Boothby: I am also aware that there are many medical men and scientists in this House and outside it who are warmly in favour of it.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can my hon. Friend say whether the process to which he referred is all done under the patent of Roche, Limited?

Mr. Boothby: No, Sir, the process to which I refer has been undertaken by various firms in different countries, but I understand that Roche, Limited, are the only firm at present producing in this country.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is not one medical man who does not consider it infinitely better to have wholemeal bread?

Mr. Boothby: The view of the Government is that a large number of people in this country do not care to eat brown

bread, and this is really the primary reason for the decision which has been come to.

Mr. De la Bère: Are the Government wedded to these vested interests? Is it not true that nothing further is intended?

UNDESIGNATED MILK.

Mr. David Adams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps are being taken to render fit for human consumption undesignated milk now being supplied for food by the Milk Marketing Board; and whether, pending such remedial action, he will prohibit the sale of this product in the interests of public health?

Mr. Boothby: During the past six years the percentage of undesignated milk has fallen from 95 to 52 of the total quantity of milk produced. Every effort is being made by the Milk Marketing Boards, with the financial assistance of the Government, to increase the production of designated milk. In addition, a proportion of undesignated milk is pasteurised before sale for liquid consumption. The proportion varies in different parts of the country. It would not be practicable to prohibit the sale of undesignated milk, since the supply of designated milk is not yet sufficient to meet the requirements of the liquid consumer.

Mr. Adams: Is the Minister aware that certain authorities are warning people against the use of this undesignated milk? Would it not be better for the Ministry to purify it before putting it on the market?

Mr. Boothby: The best we can do is to take every practicable step to secure the purification of milk.

OATS (PRICES).

Mr. Snadden: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the widespread dissatisfaction prevalent amongst oat growers as a result of the announcement of only a maximum price for oats, whereas wheat prices are fixed; and whether he will take steps to fix a guaranteed price of 14s. 6d. per cwt. for oats of milling quality and so place this crop on a parity with wheat?

Mr. Boothby: The prices prescribed for oats and other cereals of this year's crop


were settled after full consideration by the Government. I regret that I can hold out no hope of any variation of these prices.

Mr. Snadden: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that there is no guarantee that the grower will secure maximum prices, while, on the other hand, in regard to oatmeal, which is at the moment excluded, there is the certainty that prices will be related to the maximum? Is that a fair position to the grower of the oats and to the consumer of the oatmeal; and will the Parliamentary Secretary use his great weight to eliminate this profiteering?

Mr. Boothby: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a difference between oats and wheat. I do not think that the growers of oats will find themselves very hardly treated under the scheme.

RATION BOOKS, LONDON.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the number of persons to whom food ration books were issued within the area of the London Metropolitan boroughs prior to 1st January, 1940; and also the number at the latest date for which the statistics are available?

Mr. Boothby: The figures desired by my hon. Friend are not available, but I will communicate with him on the matter as soon as possible.

POULTRY FEEDING-STUFFS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what steps he is taking to increase the supply of feeding-stuffs for poultry, in view of the fact that there is now a great shortage of eggs coupled with the need to keep down their import to the lowest possible level?

Mr. Boothby: Feeding-stuffs are being imported so far as shipping is available. The Government have decided that priority of supplies must be given to cattle and sheep, and poultry keepers have been warned by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, that their supplies of purchased feeding-stuffs may have to be reduced to one-third of their pre-war requirements by October. In view of the shortage of eggs, I cannot accept the suggestion that it is necessary to restrict their import to the lowest possible level.

Mr. Hall: Would it not be better to import feeding-stuffs for poultry rather than eggs? If the space is there, why not use it for feeding-stuffs?

Mr. Boothby: As I said, we are importing the maximum possible amount of feeding-stuffs.

Mr. W. Roberts: Are we to understand that the reduction mentioned in the answer refers to one-third of the pre-war poultry stocks?

Mr. Boothby: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Mathers: What is the percentage of the reduction in feeding-stuffs in respect of sheep and cattle, as compared with that for poultry?

Mr. Boothby: I should like notice of that Question.

SUGAR.

M. Glenvil Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food the percentage of sugar now allowed, respectively, to brewers, the manufacturers of invalid and baby foods, and householders, compared with their prewar average consumption?

Mr. Boothby: Supplies of sugar to brewers, manufacturers of invalid and baby foods, and domestic consumers amount respectively to 60, 60 and 50 per cent. of pre-war average consumption. Domestic consumers have, in addition, received special allowances for fruit preservation.

Mr. Hall: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that even now the brewers have 10 per cent. more than anybody else?

Mr. Boothby: I am afraid that I cannot accept that as a statement of fact.

SURPLUS VEGETABLES AND FRUIT.

Major Milner: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the acres of cabbages ploughed up in Essex; and whether any steps are being taken to buy up and distribute, or otherwise deal with, surpluses of perishable vegetables and fruit?

Mr. Boothby: I am aware that, not only in Essex but in many other parts of the country, the yield of certain perishable green vegetables including cabbages, has at times been greatly in excess of


market requirements. It would not be practicable, and it would undoubtedly be very costly, to take steps such as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, to deal with this surplus produce. In the case of fruit, no surplus difficulties arose during the soft fruit season, except in regard to the produce of private gardens, as to which I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) on 3rd July. Although some temporary difficulties have occurred in certain districts in the case of early varieties of plums, due mainly to the premature ripening brought on by the fine weather during the past fortnight, there appears to be no ground for apprehending any considerable wastage.

Major Milner: Do I understand the Minister to say that these surpluses cannot be used in some way? Can they not be used for the troops, who, I am told, are lacking in fresh vegetables, or can they not be distributed free to the poor?

Mr. Boothby: We are in contact with the War Office. My right hon. Friend announced yesterday that fresh vegetables are now to be served to the troops on five days a week. Every possible step is being taken in the Ministry to prevent wastage.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is it not the case that, in country districts, there are many places where people can and do grow vegetables and distribute them? This is a question of distribution.

Sir Percy Harris: Will the Minister consider stopping the sale of tinned fruit and vegetables, because in spring and summer there are large supplies of fresh fruit and vegetables to be disposed of?

Mr. Boothby: I do not think it would be advisable to make an order, but we have issued a recommendation to the public not to eat tinned fruits and vegetables.

Mr. de Rothschild: Have several agricultural committees complained about this matter, and have they sent their complaint to the Minister of Agriculture?

Mr. Boothby: We must deal with each complaint upon its merits.

Mr. de Rothschild: Were not these complaints addressed to him through the Ministry of Agriculture?

Mr. Boothby: We are getting into touch with the Ministry of Agriculture. We are well aware of the position.

SLICED LOAVES, SCOTLAND (WAXED PAPER).

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he is aware of the waste of waxed paper used for wrapping sliced loaves in Scotland; that this waste is resented among patriotic bakers there; and whether he will take steps to have this waste discontinued?

Mr. Boothby: Allegations that the wrapping and slicing of loaves lead to waste are already under detailed investigation.

Mr. Gibson: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider the fact that the wrapping paper is made necessary only because of the practice of cutting the bread into slices; and is he aware that bakers would give up the practice if it were not for the attitude of the nominee of the milling combines?

Mr. Boothby: That is a point which we are investigating.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

COLLETS.

Lord Burghley: asked the Minister of Supply what were our imports of collets from Switzerland before the war; and what steps are being taken by the Machine Tool Controller to increase home production, now that this source of supply is cut off?

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The analysis of our imports is not sufficiently detailed to enable me to give figures of imports of collets from Switzerland before the war. As to the last part of the Question, suitable steps have been taken by the Machine Tool Controller to augment home production to cover our requirements, but it will not be expected that I should disclose the details.

Mr. Isaacs: Will the Minister inform the House what a collet is?

Mr. Morrison: A collet is used in the headstock of a lathe for the purpose of gripping the bars upon which the lathe is working. Collets are used also for gripping, in the case of milling machines.


I hope that nobody else will ask me anything about them. I have now got to the end of my resources.

WOOL SUPPLY OFFICER.

Mr. Leach: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that Arthur Thurman Drake, acting as officer-in-charge of blending and willeying under the Wool Control, having ostensibly relinquished interest in his own firm of T. B. Reid & Company, 39, Quebec Street, Bradford, nevertheless wrote to the town clerk, on 1st June, in his official capacity, with a view to securing special favours in the matter of the supply of electricity for T. B. Reid & Company; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am aware of the letter to which my hon. Friend refers, and to which the Town Clerk of Bradford had already drawn my attention. Full inquiry was made into the matter, and, as a result, I am satisfied that it was not written with a view to securing special consideration for a particular firm. Accordingly, the second part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. Leach: Will not the Minister be interested in reading the whole of the correspondence, which shows that he is mistaken?

Mr. Morrison: I have seen the whole of the correspondence already. While there may be considerations whether the mention of that particular firm was judicious, I am quite sure that the officer was not animated by a desire to get a concession for a particular firm. He was arguing the general issue.

Sir F. Fremantle: Is the Minister willing to say what willeying is?

CONTRACTS.

Mr. Denville: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware that certain firms on Government and private contracts, after charging time and material, are adding 15 per cent. establishment charges plus 20 per cent. profit, a total of 35 per cent.; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this practice?

Mr. H. Morrison: I am afraid that it is impossible to deal with this Question without knowledge of the goods or services which are the subject of the contracts.

So far as Ministry of Supply contracts are concerned, I shall be pleased, if my hon. Friend will give me the particulars, to consider any specific case which he has in mind.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Supply whether he has considered the letter dated 9th July from the North Staffordshire Council of the building industry, and that from the hon. Member for Stoke dated 11th July; why no explanatory reply has been made; whether he is satisfied that the allegations contained in the letter dated 9th July are proved by the facts; if so, what is the explanation; what steps are being taken to prevent a repetition; and why was the contract given to the firm named in the letter of 9th July?

Mr. H. Morrison: The letters to which my hon. Friend refers have been considered, and I much regret that owing to a misunderstanding in my Department, the necessary inquiries are not yet quite complete. I hope to be able to reply fully to my hon. Friend very shortly.

PAPER CONTROL.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Supply the cost of the three sections of the paper control, waste paper, newspapers and the rest; and what is the wage bill in each of the three sections?

Mr. H. Morrison: The total cost of the Paper Control is approximately £60,000 per annum, including salaries and wages amounting to about £50,000. The cost of each of the Waste Paper and Newspaper Sections is approximately 4,000, including about £3,400 for salaries and wages.

PRODUCTION ENGINEERS.

Dr. Morgan: asked the Minister of Supply what steps are being taken to secure that the advice of qualified production engineers will be available to area boards under the revised machinery now being set up to deal with industrial capacity?

Mr. H. Morrison: There is a great deal of engineering experience at all times at the disposal of the area boards amongst the area officers and their staffs. In addition, the Boards are empowered to appoint panels of experts on engineering and allied subjects whenever it appears to them that this course is desirable.

Dr. Morgan: Will the Minister answer my question as to qualified production engineers?

Mr. Morrison: That is a rather narrow issue. Some of these men are production engineers, but we have taken very great pains to strengthen the area organisations with qualified officers, and I am satisfied as to their qualifications for the work they have to do.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Minister of Health why the Public Assistance Board is refusing to determine the applications of old age pensioners for supplementary pensions unless the income of their landlords is furnished, in cases where such landlords happen to be relatives of the applicants?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I am informed that it is not the practice to require particulars of the income of a pensioner's landlord. whether a relative or not. Where, however, it is not accepted that the relationship of landlord and tenant exists, but it appears that the parties are members of one household, the Board have no alternative under the Act but to require that such information regarding the circumstances of the household shall be furnished as will enable a determination to be made.

Mr. Silverman: Is the hon. Lady not aware that it has become the practice of the Board to regard the fact that the relationship of landlord and tenant has been created between relatives as being sufficient to establish one common household, and that the result has been widespread hardship all over the country?

Miss Horsbrugh: I think the hon. Gentleman will realise that if people are living in a household of a relative, it must be the work of the Board's officer to find out from them whether they are living as lodgers as between landlord and tenant or whether as part of the household. Some questions must be put in order to ascertain that fact.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Lady has not quite appreciated my point. It is not that questions are asked in order to determine whether the relationship exists that I

complain, but that as soon as the investigating officer learns that the householder who rents a room to an old age pensioner is a relative of that pensioner, he refuses to make any determination at all.

Miss Horsbrugh: In my original reply I said that when it appears to the officer that it is not a case of landlord and tenant in one household, he makes inquiries. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, perhaps it did appear to the officer of the Board that it was not an ordinary case of landlord and tenant but of one household.

EMPIRE WAR SUPPLIES (CONSERVATION).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether His Majesty's Government will consult with the Governments of the Dominions and of other parts of the British Commonwealth with a view to concerting measures similar to those recently adopted by the Government of the United States of America for the purpose of conserving all supplies of vital war requirements for the needs of the Commonwealth itself?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Shakespeare): As the hon. Member will be aware, measures for the control of exports have been in force in all parts of the British Commonwealth since the early days of the war. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are in continuous touch with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and with the Governments of other parts of the Empire as to the operation of these measures in such a manner as may be best calculated to assist our common war effort.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Government represent to the other Governments of the Commonwealth that it is highly undesirable that large quantities of goods like nickel, lead and oil should go to Japan and other destinations while we need great stocks of them for ourselves, and will they seek a common policy with the other Governments which wili build up our stocks for a long war and reduce the chances of a further attack on the British Empire?

Mr. Shakespeare: The matter is constantly under review.

Mr. Mander: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only in April last the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company sold 1,000,000 barrels of oil to Japan and that the British Government have a majority holding in that company?

PRIVILEGES.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move,
That the Governor of His Majesty's Prison at Brixton, or other officer in whose custody Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay may be, do bring the said Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay on Tuesday next, at Eleven o'clock, to the Committee of Privileges, if the said Captain Archibald Henry Maule Ramsay shall desire to attend before the said Committee, and so, from time to time, as often as his attendance shall be thought necessary, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant accordingly.
The purpose of this Motion is to enable the hon. and gallant Member to appear before the Committee of Privileges if he so desires.

Question put, and agreed to.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I put a question, as to whether the Committee of Privileges will be open to the public?

Mr. Speaker: The Motion has been passed.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Ordered,
That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Lord May to attend to be examined, as a Witness, before the Sub-Committee on the Navy Services, and Air Services, appointed by the Select Committee on National Expenditure."—[Sir Percy Harris.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

That they give leave to the Lord Lloyd of Dolobran to attend in order to his being examined, as a Witness, before the Sub-Committee on Home Services, appointed by the Select Committee appointed by this House on National Expenditure, if his Lordship think fit.

Orders of the Day — WAR SAVINGS (DETERMINATION OF NEEDS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

3.48 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I should point out, in the first place, that this is only a machinery Bill. It is true that it deals with a matter of considerable importance, but its object is to give legislative form to a pledge given by the previous Government in the Budget speech of my Noble Friend Lord Simon, which pledge, of course, the present Government are only too anxious to implement. I think the best way that I can serve the House is to explain just what the Bill does, how it does it, and why it does it. I will start with the matter of why it does it. It is necessary for hon. Members to cast back their minds to the early part of this year. Last November Sir Robert Kindersley and those associated with him in the great voluntary work of stimulating the campaign for National Savings brought to the attention of the Government the fact that there might be some reluctance, or hesitancy, on the part of a great number of people, who would otherwise be willing to save their money during the war, to put it into the various forms of Government savings, because they feared that if they did that and at some future time they fell into bad circumstances, and required assistance owing to the exhaustion of their unemployment benefit rights, the Government, having first stimulated them to put the money into Government funds, would then be benefiting as a result of the application of the test of needs.
This question was raised at a number of public meetings. I met with it myself at a number of meetings that I addressed, dealing with war savings, and I have no doubt that a number of other hon. Members did so, too. Also it was brought to our attention by representatives of organised labour, and the Joint Industrial Council of employers and employed entered into some conversations with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer about

it. That led my right hon. Friend to make the pronouncement which he did in the main Budget speech of the year, that is to say, the April Budget. Perhaps I had better remind hon. Gentlemen, because I do not suppose that they have all got their OFFICIAL REPORT with them, of exactly what he said. It will be found in column 83 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 23rd April. He said that legislation would be required, and that:
The general effect of the legislation will be to withdraw from the calculation of means-for purposes of unemployment assistance the new money lent to the nation during the war up to a total of £375. I have taken £375 because it is the cost of purchasing 500 National Savings Certificates, which is the maximum that any individual can purchase. The provision must be equally applied whether the new money is in fact invested in National Savings Certificates, in Defence Bonds, in subscriptions to War Loans on the Post Office Register, or deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank, or in the Trustee Savings Banks. But, of course, the total amount excluded under the arrangement must not exceed £375 in the case of any one person. It will be necessary in the legislation to make provision to secure that the investment really is of new money and is not a transfer of money from previous funds of the same sort, since the object of the arrangement is to help to gather in the largest possible amount of additional savings for the war,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1940; col. 83, Vol. 360.]
That is the promise that was made. It is very explicit in language, and, I hope, when I have described the Bill, hon. Members will agree with me that we have carried it out, and indeed more than carried it out, in the Clauses which are before us to-day. The object, hon. Members will therefore see, is to attract new savings to the war effort, and one of the various purposes is not only the receiving of cash by the Exchequer, but, it was thought, to the extent to which people save out of their current Earnings, it checks consumption, and is therefore, as has been so Often mentioned in the purely financial Debates in this House, one of the means of checking inflation.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman define new savings?

Captain Crookshank: I have tried to put this in most simple language, and I am coming to that question. It is a complicated little Bill, and I hope, if hon. Gentlemen will allow me to proceed, to explain everything they have in mind. That is the why of the Bill—to carry out


a pledge which was based on a policy universally approved by everybody concerned. In order to be able to deal with war savings, what have you to do? The first thing is, taking the whole war, to fix the dates. What is a saving which is a war saving? When you have identified what a war saving is, the dates are comparatively easy. We all know when the war started; that is the beginning. The end will be a date after the war, and that is pretty obvious too; it would have to be, as the Bill says, "the appointed day," because hon. Members will recall that technically, though hostilities ceased in the last war on the day of the Armistice, for legislative purposes, the end of the war was not until a long time afterwards. Therefore you have to fix a day, and we make provision to do that by making an "appointed day."
When it comes to identifying what a war saving is, it is quite likely that some hon. Members will not have realised the vastness in time of the pledge which has been given. What we have to do here is to try and identify war savings, not just because of some unemployment which might come reasonably or unreasonably soon after the war, but you have to give a cover to carry out the pledge for the whole lifetime of those who are saving now. That is our interpretation of it. A "war-saver," if I may use the phrase, might be out of work two or three years after the war, and, falling on really bad times, he might require to call this provision in aid. On the other hand, if he were a young man, or even a child today, he might not come within the scope of old age pensions or supplementary pensions, even within this century. The time might not come till 1980, 1990 or even some date after the year 2,000. One has to assume for the sake of the supposition that the existing law remains unchanged. It is a big assumption, but we have to assume that, otherwise, you could not put it into legislative terms at all. I do not think that everybody has quite realised the difficulty of our problem of trying to identify what is saved during the war in such a way that people who might take advantage of it may be able to do so years and years hence.
If you took the very simplest form of identifying a war saving, it would be the case of a man who had saved, for example, in the Post Office Savings Bank something before war started, something

during the war, and no more afterwards. It is perfectly simple, as anyone could see from entries in the book the actual time that the war saving was made, and as the maximum is £375, you could see whether or not he had reached that maximum. That is quite an easy case. But take an extreme case the other way, that of a man, for example, who had saved some money before the war, again in the Post Office Savings Bank. He also saved some money during the war, and then saved some money after the war. In, say, 1942 and 1943 he takes it all out of the account and buys a small bicycle shop, and emulating some other people who have done that, perhaps, when we come to the 'fifties or 'sixties of the century, he may be another Morris. Time might go on and circumstances change with him, and he might become much poorer but he might start saving again in the Post Office Savings Bank, and by the time that he was old, in the 'nineties of this century, he would have accumulated, say, some £400 or £500. In order to carry out the pledge you would have to find some way of saying, "What you were saving during the war was really covered by Lord Simon's pledge in 1940 and should be excluded from the assessment." That is an extreme case the other way.
Hon. Gentlemen will see it is by no means a simple thing to put into a Bill in the widest sense the pledge which was given, and which at the time it was given seemed to be a perfectly simple proposition. In fact, we are trying in this Bill to give for life a free policy for the amount saved during the war. That is probably the easy way of explaining it. The only way that we could think of doing that was to devise some method of a certificate when the war was over, showing the moment of time when the calculation could be made as to what was the actual war saving. That is provided for in Clause 1, Sub-section (2). It is a method by which calculation can be made by anybody. If any of us made a saving of £375 during the war, we could make an application and give the evidence, and that would be, so to say, our free policy for life.
The considerations which arise in respect of applicants during the war are comparatively simple and I shall not complicate the argument by dealing with them. As I say, what you set out to do


first is to choose an appointed day. This, as hon. Members will see, has been provided for and then at that date, you have to measure what the war saving is. What exactly is it that has to be measured? The pledge made clear what was the list of investments or list of accounts—it is, partly, one and partly the other—which the pledge was intended to cover. I have read the words of my Noble Friend's speech and hon. Members will find the list set out in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2 (2). Hon. Members who understand its implications will note the extra item which has been put in paragraph (c) and which was not in the pledge. This paragraph will cover the case, which I think hon. Members will agree is only right, of any amount which a person has On loan to the Treasury without interest. That therefore is the list of the investments concerned.
To come to the method of measurement, I will take the simplest case, namely, that of a man who at the appointed day had £300 in the Post Office Savings Bank, £200 of which was saved before the war and £100 of which was saved during the war. The answer is arrived at by a simple sum in subtraction. But this Bill covers more than merely Post Office Savings Bank accounts. There are also National Savings Certificates and there is Government stock and therefore the matter is not quite so simple in all cases. I think it probable that the small savers with whom we are concerned, do not, as a general rule, save simultaneously in several different ways. The experience of savings committees, I think, is that they concentrate on one thing until they have the maximum which they can hold in that particular form and then they may turn to something else. But there may well be cases in which savers will have something in Government stock, something in Savings Certificates, and something in the Post Office Savings Bank. Therefore, you have to add all these together and consider the aggregate and then, as is made clear in Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, you have to deduct from the aggregate amount, on the appointed day, the amount which represents prewar savings in those various accounts. Thus by a subtraction sum you get at

the figure which will be shown on the certificate.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr) rose—

Captain Crookshank: If hon. Members will allow me to proceed, I think I know the points which they have in mind and if I fail to explain those points clearly in the course of my opening speech, perhaps I can speak again with the leave of the House. I am trying now to explain how one arrived at the figure and as I say it is reached by deducting, on the appointed day, the amount in these various accounts which was there before the war, from the amount put into them after the war began and the difference between the two represents the war savings. Within that broad definition, however, there are two reservations, one minor and one important, to which I must call the attention of the House. The minor one, which may have escaped the notice of those who have not studied and appreciated exactly what is proposed, is dealt with in Clause 2 (2, a) and refers to Government stock held on the Post Office register. It will be seen there that what we are dealing with is the aggregate. This is the one investment which is eligible and hon. Members will notice the words:
The amount of Government stock … to which he is entitled either by reason of having subscribed therefore at the time of the issue thereof, or by inheritance.
The two last words rather imply that something may be excluded. That is so, and what is excluded is Government stock which has been purchased. It is excluded for this reason—that a purchase involves a sale and the first party sold the stock, presumably, in order to realise it and to do something with it. One thing which he is obviously not going to do is to buy the same stock again or put the money straight away into some similar investment. Presumably, he wants the money for some other purpose. Therefore, that transaction does not add a penny to the total amount of new money lent to the Government for the war. Nor indeed from the point of view of the purchaser, is there any particular point in his doing that because he can subscribe direct for the stock and there is no reason why he should go out of his way to buy from someone else.
As regards the question of inheritance, it may be said that if a man inherits


money he has not saved it, but that it represents the savings of somebody else. That is true and this provision represents an extension of the pledge which was given by my Noble Friend. It is done for this reason. It is true, that if I inherit £100, that sum has not been saved by me, yet; having got it, what are my alternatives? I can use that money to buy pianos, or in some other form of expenditure, or I can save it. If I save it, instead of spending it, then to that extent it represents new savings because at that moment I have the opportunity of dissipating it rather than saving it. For that reason I think hon. Gentlemen will see that it is reasonable to give the general protection of this Measure to inherited money. The larger reservation is to be found in Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. Here I go back to the words of my Noble Friend in his Budget Speech:
It will be necessary in the legislation to make provision to secure that the investment really is of new money and is not a transfer of money from previous funds of the same sort, since the object of the arrangement is to help to gather in the largest possible amount of additional savings for the war.
I think on reflection it will be appreciated that if one had money in a savings arrangement connected, say, with a works, or with one's parish, or with some kind of thrift organisation, and if that money had been saved before the war, a transfer of that money into one of the four kinds of savings enumerated in Clause 2 (2) would not represent new savings at all. It is a new holding. It is an investment in something else. It means having the money in the Post Office Savings Bank instead of somewhere else or holding National Savings Certificates, for example, instead of shares. It would be a change but it would not be new money—it would not be new savings. As my Noble Friend pointed out it is simply transferring a saving already made before the war and therefore is not covered by the pledge which he gave.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to complete my explanation before answering any questions.

Mr. George Griffiths: This is a very important matter. Suppose a person has £375 in a co-operative

society or a building society and that money had been transferred already—since 3rd September—would not that count as new money?

Captain Crookshank: No, I thought I had made that clear. I have given various examples but it does not matter what the money is in, if it was money saved before the war.

Mr. S. O. Davies: Unless it was saved by someone else.

Captain Crookshank: An exception has been made in the case of inheritance for the reason which I have already explained. It is a different matter where money, which was saved before the war and was then an investment, has been simply taken out of one thing and put into another. At first blush, it would appear that the money is available for Government securities but I do not know, any more than anybody else, that it was not in Government securities before, and whether the transfer is not really a mere re-entry. I think it likely that a great deal of money in thrift and savings societies would, in the natural course, be held in just those corresponding securities, because they are Government securities. Therefore probably if this transaction were traced out to the furthest limit, it would be found that there was no advantage to the Government at all in the form of new savings and that it would merely be a matter of a bookkeeping entry. Therefore anything which was saved before the war and which is transferred in the way I have indicated, is not new money saved in the war. I thought I had made that clear already. It is a change of investment.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is a repudiation of the spirit of the pledge.

Captain Crookshank: Not at all. I am sorry if hon. Members do not agree with me, but I must point out that this is exactly in the spirit of the pledge. Money such as I have described is in no sense a new saving. Hon. Members may think that this is not a right thing to do, but I cannot accept the suggestion that it is not in line with what was stated by my Noble Friend. What my Noble Friend said is absolutely clear, and what hon. Members have in mind is only a transfer from one thing to another. The whole background of this matter, the whole


reason why the pledge was ever made and why this problem ever arose, is to be found in the fact that unless something of this kind could be done there would be a stumbling-block in the way of the campaign directed at getting new savings—not transfers from other securities, but new savings throughout the country during the war. [Interruption.] I do not want any misunderstanding about this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "There has been."] If there has been I cannot help that, but may I put this consideration to hon. Members? If their suggestion is that money transferred from some existing form of savings into, say, the Post Office Savings Bank, ought to count, even though it represents pre-war saving, that would be a most unfair procedure as between one kind of saver and another.
That particular saver's friend might have held a similar amount of pre-war savings already in the Post Office Savings Bank. He might have in the Savings Bank £300, of which £200 was represented by entries dated before 3rd September, while £100 had been lodged during the war. He is not going to say that the £200 which was in the Post Office Savings Bank before 3rd September is a war saving. Would it not, then, be the height of unfairness to say, "Oh, yes, but this other man happened to hold £200 before the war in another equally good and equally deserving thrift organisation, and because he has been able to move it from that into the Post Office Savings Bank and there make a new entry that man should get benefit to the extent of £300, while the other man's benefit is only £100 when the circumstances are exactly the same.

Mr. G. Griffiths: It is new money for the Government.

Captain Crookshank: I thought I had made that clear, and I will leave that point so that hon. Members can think it over.

Mr. Stephen: Suppose after this Bill becomes an Act a person who has, say, £375 in railway stock sells it and puts it into a savings bank. Will that be counted as new war savings?

Mr. James Hall: Was not this offer made by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer as an inducement to get people to transfer their money?

Captain Crookshank: The whole theme and force of the savings campaign, in which I have taken a humble part and with which I have been in touch all the time, have been directed to the one purpose of getting in new money and new savings, and to check consumption. This brings in more money to the Exchequer and is also one of the means by which it can check inflation.

Mr. Silverman: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman really say that the Government have not made tremendous efforts since the beginning of the war to induce all kinds and all sorts of persons to transfer their savings to the Government in order to assist the war effort? Have not we all been invited to take part in savings campaigns up and down the country?

Captain Crookshank: I am frying to make a Second Reading speech, but we are rapidly getting to the stage of cross-examination. I will try in the course of the day to answer all the questions put to me, but I will just say to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that that amount would not be war savings under the definition of this paragraph.

Mr. Silverman: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered my question.

Captain Crookshank: I will not go further than what I said before.

Mr. Silverman: Is it because there is no answer?

Captain Crookshank: No, it is because I have already answered it, and I will leave that point so that hon. Gentlemen can think of the unfairness of the case I put to them. That is how we are identifying what is war savings. After the appointed day all those who have said they will apply for a certificate, as laid down in the second paragraph of the first Clause, will bring evidence about their holdings. A certificate will be granted and the work for that will be done by the Post Offices, and I think that at this stage that is probably all I need say with reference to that particular Clause of the Bill.
There is, however, one further point which has been a source of considerable difficulty, and I wish to put everything before the House as openly as I can. The difficulty is that the pledge was given in April and the Supplementary Pensions Act came into force at the beginning of this month. I do not know how many or how few cases there might be, but I think anybody who might have been saving and hoped to get the advantage of this, should it come into force before that Act is passed, would have accepted the view that there was a long time between April and August when these provisions would exist before supplementary payments came to be made. The Government, as everybody knows, have been preoccupied with many other things since April, and judging by the questions which have already been addressed to me it has not been easy to devise a Bill which would be fair to everybody concerned. Time has gone along, and the Bill which is now before Parliament cannot become law before next week, when, possibly, two or three payments will have been made. I want to deal with this point. Up to this Bill becoming law there is, of course, no statutory definition of war savings, and there has been no power to disregard anything which may be considered war savings in application for supplementary pension which had to be granted or refused on the basis of the existing law. That is not a satisfactory position, and I propose it should be dealt with in this way.
There are two classes of case which will be affected when the Bill becomes law. There is the first case in which a supplementary pension of some kind is being paid but the amount of it has been, or may have been, reduced by reference to capital assets which will now, as the result of this legislation, be disregarded. In that case all these cases will be reviewed in due course, and the amount of supplementary pension will be adjusted to the date on which the first payment was made. There is the other class of case, and that is those whose applications have been turned down owing to the possession of more than £300 capital. Some of these applicants may qualify under the Bill, but it does not require a very big saving to make a difference of a shilling or two. Therefore, the way to deal with that is to

try and make good the effect there has been through the delay in introducing this Bill. The only practicable way in which that can be done is for applicants for supplementary pension who have been rejected on grounds of capital assets, if they have such savings as would be disregarded as the result of this Bill, to apply within a reasonable time after the passage of this Bill. If on examination they were found to be entitled to supplementary pension, then, of course, any necessary adjustment would be made as from the date on which the first supplementary pensions were issued.

Mr. Stephen: It has to be done within the next fortnight?

Capt. Crookshank: People know whether they have some of these savings, and the quicker they apply the quicker they will be able to get the back payment. That brings me to the end of what I have to say. I feel sure the House will agree with me that the Bill which I have explained does give full effect to Lord Simon's pledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whether or not there has been any doubt about it, we have put the most favourable interpretation upon it. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is a miserable and disgraceful Bill."] It seems that hon. Members could not be quite clear, when the statement was made, whether the limit of £375 referred to was an individual limit and not a household limit. It was not absolutely clear in the pledge, but we have taken it to apply to everybody concerned.
If there is a father and son living together and both have saved £375, it would be £750 in the case of application and not 375. We have brought in a class which was not mentioned at all before—blind persons' pensions—and by the provisions for certifying on the appointed day we have obviated any possibilty in the future of any need for troublesome investigation. Because this Bill is urgent in the view of those who may be applying for these allowances and pensions in the future, it is imperative that it should be put on the Statute Book as soon as possible. I commend it to the House and I hope they will assist me to get it there.

Mr. E. Smith: Great concern has been expressed about the interpretation of new money. Do I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that new


money is only money saved since the beginning of the war and that any transfer will not come into that category?

Captain Crookshank: I thought I had made it clear. The words of Clause 2, paragraph 3, say that it is not savings which were made before the day the war opened.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The first part of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech explained why the Bill has been brought forward, and he gave two reasons about which I want to say a few words. The first was that the Chancellor and the Government had discovered that the application of the household means test at the time of unemployment assistance and now on a far wider scale in the country through supplementary allowances, was discouraging the campaign for war savings. I know I speak for every Member of this House when I say that it is our very keen desire indeed to do everything we can to support the movement for war savings. We realise that if we are to finance this war in the way which will be the least harmful to the people of this country, particularly the working classes, we must make every legitimate effort we can to fill the gap about which we have heard so much in Budget discussions during the last few weeks. I have been very much perturbed by the fact that this gap between revenue and expenditure is widening. Unless it is filled, the people we represent will pay a heavy price.
I have joined my colleagues in their objections to the taxes which have been imposed. I fear very much more the effects of inflation than any tax I have seen yet. We trade union and Labour Members will support every effort that is made to induce our people to invest their savings in War Savings Certificates and the other kinds of investments which have been mentioned to-day. What is discouraging the workers is the impression which is gaining ground that the big fish are holding out for larger bait. There are suggestions in the financial columns of the Press that the Excess Profits Tax might be reduced from 100 to 90 and the rate of interest increased. That is not encouraging the working class to put their savings into War Savings Certificates. It is to us refreshing to get an admission on

that side of the House that at last there is general recognition that the means test hits the best people in the working classes. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech is a complete justification for that. We have been saying it for very many years without carrying conviction, at least in the Division Lobby, when we have discussed the means test. It hits the most thrifty and the most careful people, who look after themselves and save their pennies and live decent lives. In the old days unfortunately it only affected in large numbers the people who lived in the distressed areas. Now it is experienced in every part of the country where supplemental old age pensions are being administered. I venture to prophesy that there will grow up a very widespread demand for the abolition of the household means test.
As far as the Bill goes, we welcome it. The right hon. Gentleman gave, as the second reason why it has been produced, the desire to encourage savings and to remove anything which discourages savings. He said it was being introduced in fulfilment of a pledge given by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is obvious that there will be much contention as to what this pledge was. It is very unfortunate that, when the pledge was given, it was not stated more specifically and in much clearer terms. When we make promises which affect the lives of the common people we owe it to them to speak in language which they understand, because there are. I believe, thousands of people who have not accepted the interpretation of the ex-Chancellor's pledge which the Financial Secretary puts upon it to-day. His words were:
It will be necessary in the legislation to make provision to secure that the investment really is new money and is net a transfer of money from previous funds of the same sort."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1940; col. 83; Vol. 360.]
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given the interpretation that the phrase "new money" means new savings. If so, why was not the phrase "new savings" used? It is very unfortunate that the general impression has gone out, because thousands of people will be disappointed who have done something in conformity with what they thought was the pledge and will now discover that they have made a mistake. The interpretation which the average man


and woman have given to it finds some justification in the words used by the Chancellor—"new money," and not the transfer of money from previous funds of the same sort. The interpretation is that money transferred from one form of Government security to another would be included, because those are savings of the same sort—that moneys taken from another kind of savings, for example, industrial, provident and Co-operative societies, other kinds of organisation into which investments are put, houses and so on, money transferred to the Government from securities which are not Government securities, would qualify for this benefit. Let me quote from a letter that I have received from someone who actually wrote about his old age pension supplementation and the way his case has been handled:
When the Bill was before the House of Commons, the newspapers stated that new war savings would be disregarded. On this information I at once transferred £200 from the Co-operative Society to war savings certificates. By this transference I actually lost in interest £3 per annum, but I did it because I thought I should be bringing myself within the Chancellor's pledge.
That letter clearly indicates what the general impression in the country was. When we are dealing with working men and women, let us use language that they understand. One of the worst things that can happen, which might be fatal at a time like this, is for the impression to go abroad that Governments play fast and loose with their pledges.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Did not the writer of that letter admit that he was doing it simply to take advantage of the Government's offer?

Mr. Griffiths: He gained that impression from the newspaper reports of the ex-Chancellor's speech. He generally chooses his words carefully, and it is very unfortunate that the words he used on this occasion are capable of misinterpretation. He thought that any money given to the Government was new money. Very large numbers of people, when they read the Financial Secretary's statement to-morrow, will feel that they have been let down. It is a very difficult situation. The only thing I am afraid of is people wondering whether the Government and the House of Commons are playing a straight game. That impression exists, and it is very widespread. People have been acting upon it and are

now being penalised for acting on a pledge given by the Government.
As for the machinery of the Bill, I gather from the Financial Memorandum that disregard for the purposes of the means test will apply, not only to the money saved, but to the increments from that money. I would like the Financial Secretary to make this clear. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer fixed the amount at £375, because that was the amount which would purchase 500 Savings Certificates, and in 10 years the sum would have grown to £500. I understand that at the appointed date a certificate will be given to those who 'have invested their savings, and, once it is given, as I understand it, it will be a free policy, and, if at any time afterwards the person has received unemployment assistance or a supplementary old age pension, he can produce this certificate and get the amount disregarded. If he has paid £375, and in 10 years has £500, will the £500 be disregarded?
The Financial Secretary made one point of very great importance. One of the things that come before us in the operation of the household means test is the question, what is a household? It is a problem which is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction in the country. It is being interpreted in a very mean fashion. I urge on the Government that they must look at the problem, because it is causing no end of concern. I gather that, if there are in a household several persons who might at some time have to apply for unemployment assistance or a supplemental pension, the £375 maximum or, as I think it should be, £500—whatever the maximum is—that is for each person in the household. I gather that that is right. I gather that it is not a question of £375 being disregarded for the total members of the household. For instance, suppose that a father and a son each had £200 invested in this way and that at the end of the war one was unemployed and the other in work, and the unemployed one sought unemployment assistance, I gather that £400 would be disregarded in such a case. That is a matter which has been causing a great deal of concern.
There is one thing which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not made clear. It has reference to the appointed


day, 3rd September. After 3rd September, it will be a fairly simple matter, as I understand a person will get a certificate to say how much he has; but if a man applies now for a supplementary old age pension, how is the amount of Savings Certificates which he has to be determined? There are in my town 160 Savings Groups and in a period of seven months they have subscribed £372,000 by means of weekly deductions from their wages. On 3rd September, there will be large numbers of people who will be half-way through subscribing for a certificate. How will the amount which a man has be calculated? Will it be the number of certificates issued to him since 3rd September, so that, therefore, there will be no benefit in respect of the certificates that were partly contributed before 3rd September? I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that there were savings schemes before the war, and what has happened since the war began is that there has been an enormous expansion. I hope the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look into this point.
In conclusion, let me say that the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the interjections that were made from this side made one thing quite clear. It is that we can never get fairness while there is a household means test. People do not like all these inquiries. The other day there was a heated Debate about what were called "Cooper's snoopers." I hope that hon. Members will get heated about the "snoopers" that have been about for a very long time in connection with unemployment and supplementary old age pensions. There is nothing which the best type of citizens hate as much as the operation of this means test. As a supporter of the Government and as one who desires to see the maximum unity in this country in the testing time which is ahead of us, and out of which I am sure we shall emerge successfully, I appeal to the Government to make a big, bold gesture to the workers; and there is no gesture that they could make which would evoke such a response in the hearts and minds of the working men and women of this country as would the abolition of the household means test, with all that it implies. Until that means test is abolished,

there are bound to be anomalies in Bills of this sort. The value of the unity which they would achieve would be infinitely greater than the trivial amount of money that is saved by the means test. The supplementary old age pensions are beginning to operate, and already people are resenting their niggardly operation. Now is a good opportunity for the Government to make a fine gesture, and one that would be fully justified, by announcing the abolition of the household means test.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: Yesterday evening a number of hon. Members divided against the Government on the Purchase Tax, and I have no doubt that those who voted against the Government felt bitterly on the subject. I feel much more bitter about this Measure than I did about the Purchase Tax, and I should have no hesitation in voting against this Bill. I think its value is grossly exaggerated, for it is a petty and contemptible Measure, and I dislike it immensely. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury sought to justify the Bill and his main argument was that if we were to do certain things, it would cause inequalities between one man and another. When hon. Members on this side made interjections and said that the Bill was not in accord with the pledge that was given, and particularly when they said that money which was saved before the war in co-operative societies and then put into War Savings Certificates should be covered, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that if that were done, it would create inequalities between one saver and another.
But this Bill creates the gravest of all inequalities. I have in my pocket a letter from a member of my trade union; this man has been a member of the union for 50 years, and he has saved £200, which he invested in the local Cooperative society, and also £100 which he invested in the Post Office before the war. This money will not be disregarded. A man who has saved £100 since the war is to be treated more favourably than a man who saved before the war. The only justification that has been made for that situation is that the Chancellor has appealed for new money. I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that appeals to people to save money


did not start with the beginning of the war. There were constant appeals to people to put money into the Post Office Savings Bank. For many years a National Savings Committee constantly appealed for savings. May I at this point say to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that even the suggestion which he made would be unfair? He suggested that a person who takes his money from the co-operative society and puts it into Government loans should be exempt. Surely, nobody in his senses would defend such a proposition.
The truth of the matter is that people who saved before the war are just as good citizens as those who have saved since the war. People who saved in co-operative societies or in the Post Office before the war and those who have done so since the war ought to be treated equally. If that is not done, there will be all kinds of evasions. For instance, if I have £100 in a Co-operative society or £100 in some other thing, and I lift it, then I do not put it into the Post Office at one fell swoop. I put it in £1 at a time or £2 at a time. Who will be able to trace it, unless Scotland Yard and Lord Swinton's Committee are put on to the job? Moreover, I know people who have saved £100 and not put it in the Post Office or into any other investment, but have kept it locked up in a private drawer. People who have £100 or £200 saved and locked up in their house and who now invest it will get the benefit of this Bill; but if they had £300 saved in a Post Office, as the Government wanted them to do, they will not get the benefit of the Bill. The whole thing is petty and ridiculous, and ought not to be continued. Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that a person who saved before the war was not rendering a service to the country just as much as a person who has saved since the war? I say that a person who saved before the war was rendering an equal service to the country.
I do not want to argue about the pledge that was given; to tell the truth, that pledge can be interpreted as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman interprets it, or as hon. Members on this side interpret it. The truth is that there is no logic or fairness in differentiating between those who saved before the war and those who have saved since the war began. My hon. Friend the Member for

Lianelly said that the household means test and the investigations under it are creating a terrible amount of ill feeling. Now, under this Bill, there is to be a further investigation into what kind of money a person had or whether he made a transfer. Questions will be put to a co-operative society, for instance, as to whether a certain person had £100 invested in it, whether he lifted it and put it into war savings, and at what particular date that happened. This Bill is one of the most unequal Measures that I have ever known. I will say this for it, that it does not mislead the House. In cold, clear terms the Bill explains what it means. Anyone who knows anything about the administration of Unemployment Insurance knows that this Measure applies to them as well as to the old age pensioners. The figures of unemployment assistance are down at the present time. But what does this Bill mean? It is, in fact, giving notice to them that after the war the Government expects them to become chargeable again to unemployment assistance. That cannot be denied, and the only real effect of part of this Bill comes into operation after the war.
There ought to be a protest in regard to the last sentence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in which he said that the Government were in a hurry to get this Measure through, and hoped that the House of Commons would get it through quickly. The Government have taken five months to introduce this Bill, and now that we have an opportunity to discuss its details, we find that they want it passed hurriedly through all its stages before the House of Commons adjourns next week. That is all the consideration we are to have on an important human Measure affecting the lives of the people. It is just flung at us to-day, and next week it must have passed not only through this House but also through another place. As the Bill is drawn, it is almost impossible to amend it to any extent, because any Amendment will increase the money charge due to the Exchequer. I cannot imagine anyone defending it, because it penalises decent people who saved before the war. In many cases it was more difficult to save before the war than after. I can speak for the trade with which I am best acquainted, and those who saved before the war are geniuses, and, far from being penalised, should have a medal. Imagine


the position where a man, receiving a wage of £3 a week, who is not very sure of his job, has been putting a little by week by week in the Post Office. I have seen sailors coming off the boats before the war putting their shillings and pounds into the Post Office Savings Bank. Why should these people be penalised now, and told that they are inferior to those who saved before the war? The right hon. Gentleman talked about inequalities. The inequalities are that the Government are differentiating between the savers before September and the savers after September, and between savers in co-operative societies and those in other organisations. If money in the co-operative was in a wife's name, are we to take it that a man is to be penalised because it happened to be put in the husband's name? Looking at it from every angle, I have never known a Measure with less equality, and one which will create more feeling among decent folk. I resent the Measure, and hope never again to see a Government capable of introducing such a mean and contemptible Bill as this.

5.5 p.m.

Sir Irving Albery: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman in introducing this Bill told us it was a machinery Bill. I fear that he has had handed to him a very difficult task. It certainly is a machinery Bill in the sense that it attempts to carry out the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am afraid it will raise a good many difficulties. One of the difficulties which is already in dispute is in regard to the Chancellor's exact pledge. Unfortunately I have not in my possession a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT, but the Chancellor's words have been quoted twice to me, and they conveyed to me the impression that any money subscribed for this war, which did not come out of subscriptions which had already been made to Government funds, would be new money. One has to consider what is the definition of "new money." I know only two ways in which I can interpret that. Firstly, if the Bank of England increases its issue by another bundle of notes, that is new money. The only other definition of new money I can give is when a party succeeds in attracting to itself money from some other party or parties. In that case the money which has been attracted is new money, or, in other words, money which comes to the

Government for the purposes of this war which was in some way not in the Government's possession before.
Then there is the question of certificates. I know that it is very easy to criticise and more difficult to say what should be done, but I cannot help feeling that the people who are to benefit by the special advantages offered to them in this Bill would have been better advised if their investments lent to the Government had remained in the Government's hands. I cannot see any advantage in almost inducing a person who has made a safe investment in a gilt-edged security to take it out and put it into something else, and then, at a later date, to say that it will be treated as if it were still there. I do not wish in any way to lessen any benefit which may be derived by those who are willing to lend money to the State at the present time, but in their own interest it would be better that they should keep it in Government securities, and that their record of holdings in Government securities should show what they have done. Some Members have referred to certain inequalities which will be created by this Bill. There is one very serious inequality to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. Unfortunately, it is one which occurs only too often when we are at war, and it relates to those at present fighting in the Armed Forces of the Crown. I can best explain what I mean by giving the House two examples.
Let us take first the case of a war worker who is now earning better wages, and as a result of thrift lends to the State £300. At the end of the war he has a certificate, and if he is unfortunate enough to apply for unemployment assistance benefit he will have the benefit conferred by that certificate, which, so far as I can understand it, is about 1s. for every £25 which will not be counted. Now let me take the case of a man in the Armed Forces. Let us take the case of a Reservist who at a time when wages were not too high succeeded in saving £300. That man is then called up for service in the Army, Navy or Air Force, as the case may be, and the possibility of saving and lending to the State no longer exists. He is doing all he can by giving his whole service and his life to the country. When the war is over, he may go back to employment, and then, at a later stage, along with the other man who has also


saved £300, they both may fall out of employment, and apply for unemployment assistance. In that case the man who serves his country in the field will receive some 10s. a week less in unemployment benefit than the man who lent money to the State during two or three years of war. That seems to me to be an absolutely impossible situation and one which probably was not realised. I do not imagine for one moment that when this Bill was drawn up that point came to light. I cannot believe that anyone in this House would be willing to pass legislation which would penalise those men serving their country at the present time.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Mander: This Bill is to carry out a pledge made on the introduction of the Budget, and to encourage the War Savings Movement. I should like to join in paying a tribute to the splendid voluntary work which is being done by the War Savings associations throughout the country, and to express a hope that in some magical way by their work they will successfully bridge the gap, although it is very difficult to see how that can be done. Nevertheless, tremendous efforts are being made from one end of the country to the other in every kind of association where people are joining together, and the movement has met with a great deal of success. I do not know that the Government are meeting with quite the same universal success with their appeals to possessors of larger sums of money to subscribe to the War Loans. I remember listening to a broadcast the other night by Sir Robert Kindersley, in which he called attention to the fact that certain boards of directors were considering whether it was in the interests of shareholders that they should make subscriptions of this kind. Quite rightly, he said that what they must think of is their duty to the country, which came before any question of whether shareholders should receive 1 per cent. or ½ per cent. more. I do not think it has been an encouragement to the movement for saving when, as we heard yesterday, the Directorate of the Bank of England voted to themselves another £30,000 by way of remuneration. It is exceedingly unhealthy at a time when appeals are being made for subscriptions for war purposes.

Then there is the question of loans made to the Government free of interest. A number of these loans free of interest have been made by trade unions. There is a case, in my own constituency, of 10,000 being lent free of interest by the Lock Latch and Key Industries Trade Union and there is a number of other cases elsewhere. But I am not aware of anything being done on the employers' side, and I hope that they will respond to the good example set by the trade unions. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman explained this Bill in his usual exceedingly lucid way. It was a difficult Bill to explain in some respects, particularly in reference to the pledge made by Lord Simon on 23rd April and the discussion which then took place.
I venture to call attention to a request made in the subsequent Debate by the Secretary of State for Air, who asked whether attention had been given to this matter, and what the view of the Government was with regard to it. He asked:
I wonder whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends that concession to apply also to those people on public assistance, to those who come under the Poor Law. It may happen that a man who is under the Unemployment Assistance Board this week falls ill and is declared to he unemployable. He will then have to go to the public assistance committee. Indeed, a man who may be saving at the present time may fall on bad times or a member of his household may fall on bad times, and his war savings may come to be taken into account when calculating the amount of assistance which is due to the household from the public assistance committee. I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear whether the exemption will apply to Poor Law cases as well."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1940; cols. 93 and 94, Vol. 360.]
According to the terms of this Bill, it does not apply to such cases, and I ask the Minister to be good enough to say why the proposal of the Secretary of State for Air has not met with the success it deserves. The supplementary old age pensions scheme recently came into operation. No doubt a certain number of recipients are pleased with it, but at the same time I find there is great disappointment among large numbers of people because they find that its terms are quite different from those they expected. I have received many letters from my constituents, as no doubt have other hon. Members, in which it is pointed out that they would have preferred an all round increase. They resent particularly the


introduction of this new means test. There is no doubt about that. I hope that the appeal which has been made just now will be listened to.
I should now like to say a word about the actual terms of the pledge of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He referred to a transfer of money from previous savings of the same sort. That is very specific, and it does not seem to me that the terms of this Bill carry out that pledge. The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) pointed out that in savings of the same sort there cannot be a very great difference of interpretation. Let me take various different alternatives. Suppose a man has ordinary shares, and he sells them—perhaps he would be very well advised to do so—and invests them in War Savings Certificates. That would not be taken into consideration, and would not come, I gather, within the terms of the Bill. Surely these are not savings of the same sort, but of quite a different kind. I should like to know how the Minister can say that the holding of ordinary shares is of the same sort as the holding of War Savings Certificates. This scheme is a compulsory savings scheme. For the first time certain individuals in this country are to be induced by a compulsory scheme to invest their savings in a certain way. I should like to see that applied on a much wider scale to people with much larger sums of money, and I am inclined to think that we shall come to something of that kind before we have finished with the financing of this war. Suppose a man sells some furniture and invests the money in Savings Certificates. That is not a saving of any kind. Or he may sell a piano or a motor car, and use the money to buy certificates. Is that a new investment or not? I gather that it does not come within the terms of the Bill, and that it is only when an individual has some surplus income, some cash coming to him, and invests it in Government savings that the Bill comes into operation. That is how I understand it, and if it is not so I shall be glad to have the matter put right.
Those are the main points I want to make. I feel that this Bill does not carry out the pledge given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a very serious thing to lead people all over the country, by the use of perfectly clear

language, to believe one thing, and then to come down to the House of Commons many months afterwards with a Bill which, I submit, bears a quite different interpretation in the mind of any unbiased person. I think we ought to press the Government on this matter—in a friendly way, of course, because I certainly am a very devoted supporter of the present Government, and do not desire to embarrass them in any way, as I am sure the Patronage Secretary appreciates. But I do feel that we are entitled, indeed, that it is our duty, by peaceful persuasion, by the use of the Parliamentary machine, to persuade the Government that they have taken a wrong view in this matter, that their action will be wrongly regarded in the country and will not redound to their credit or assist us in getting the national unity which we are trying to obtain. I would ask the Government to review the matter and, on the Committee stage, to extend the scope of the Bill. As an hon. Member has said, the best thing would be to abolish the means test at an early date and give a general rise in old age pensions, and then we should give satisfaction from one end of the country to the other.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Magnay: I owe it to the House to explain why it was that I was not present at the beginning of this Debate. A deputation of the Mayor and Corporation of Gateshead came to the Ministry of Health, and I was there from a quarter to four until 20 minutes or so ago. I think too highly of the House and of the importance of this Debate to-day to treat it lightly by coming in at any old time, and I am sorry that I had not the opportunity of hearing the Financial Secretary to the Treasury explaining the Bill and the reply from the opposite side. Therefore, I come with, so to speak, a fresh mind to the consideration of the implications of this Bill. It seems to me that we are the queerest nation on earth. I have come, as I said, from the Ministry of Health, and I saw all sorts of war placards displayed and placards talking about the morale of the people. The best evidence of the morale of our people is that we are talking about old age pensions in this cool manner this afternoon. We are thinking ahead, and I am sure that the hopes of those who wish well to old age pensioners will gain fulfilment.


When we discussed this proposal some months ago some of us said there would be a very large number of applicants for supplementary pensions. We were told from the Front Bench that there might probably be 300,000, but it happens that the number is already beyond the million mark. In my own constituency of Gateshead there were 1,500 old age pensioners receiving public assistance, and there have been 1,100 other applicants for these supplementary pensions. That shows that generous treatment—and I want the House to mark that word "generous"—for old age pensioners was very much needed. I would remind the House that from this very spot I pleaded for a personal means test instead of a household means test. I think that is quite enough to impose upon the old people.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must remind the hon. Member that we are not discussing the Old Age Pensions Act but this War Savings Bill.

Mr. Magnay: I am sorry that I went too far back, but I was going to the genesis of the matter. With all respect I feel that what I was saying was germane to this discussion, for the reason that there was no definition then of a household and there is not one to-day.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member mist leave that question out of the Debate. Otherwise we shall be discussing this subject all night.

Mr. Magnay: My answer to that, with all respect, is that the officers who have to administer the Old Age Pensions Act and who will have to administer this Measure do not know what is the proper definition of a household, nor do they know what is the meaning of "new money," and surely we have a right to try to discover in the High Court of Parliament what "household" means. I will read the Regulations dealing with supplementary pensions. If the House will turn to page 2 it will find under the heading of "outgoings"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Again the hon. Member is going back to supplementary pensions, which are not the subject of this Bill.

Mr. Stephen: Surely the hon. Member is in order in referring to the determination of need. If we are to talk about the

determination of need, surely we ought to be in a position to refer to the figures dealing with need.

Mr. Mathers: May I point out to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay), who on his own admission was not present when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made his statement, that we have had the assurance to-day that there will be no question of a household means test because it is to be a test which is to apply to the individual?

Mr. Magnay: I hope that is correct, because, if so, it is all I need trouble the House about. I can only say again, if I am not again out of Order, that the officers in Gateshead, where we are fortunate in our officers, do not know what "household" means; but if that is the Ruling which has been given to-day, it is quite sufficient for me.
As regards this "new money" definition, I remember the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, then Sir John Simon, making a statement in which he said that it would be necessary by legislation to make provision to secure that the investment is really of new money and is not a transfer of money from previous funds. It seemed to me then, as it seems to me now, that the clear definition was that so long as it was within the stock enumerated on page 3 of the Bill, it was Government stock, from the Government point of view—and that is the only thing that matters—and must obviously be new money to them. It had never been in their hands before. That was what I understood when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement, and that is what I now think the meaning to be. That is the sensible and logical reason to be given for it. It is obvious that old age pensioners cannot have saved any money since September, 1939. From where can they have got the money? Why do they want the old age pension? Because they have not the wherewithal with which to keep themselves. Obviously, it must be something that they have realised, or a windfall, an asset of theirs, commutation of their pensions or a thousand-and-one other things, but it is new money for the purposes of the statement made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that that is the meaning now.
You have ruled out of Order the best part of my speech, Mr. Deputy-Speaker,


and I must obey you. I do so with great reluctance, although with all respect to you, Sir. It would have been of the greatest assistance to officers, throughout their administration of the scheme, if they knew beyond a peradventure what the position is to be. The household is not a legal entity. No one can describe what a household is. Anyone who is within the four corners of a house at any time makes a household, within the meaning of these Regulations. That is sheer nonsense.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to make two points upon this Bill. I say frankly that, on the words used by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was plain, when one read the OFFICIAL REPORT On the following day, or on the subsequent day, that the conception of new money was intelligible to a certain number of people engaged in finance and to a certain number of people not so engaged. There is some justification for what has been brought forward now. That Debate was extremely well attended, and the concession was welcomed. I believe that everybody in the House and in the country thought that the poorer sections of the public were being told: "You put money into War Savings Certificates and one or two similar things. When we have won this war for freedom, as a result of which you will be unemployed and seeking public relief—because that is what happens with modern wars for freedom—you will not be told that we cannot help you and that you cannot have your dole. You must proceed to unload your money and to feed yourself." I am sure that everybody in the country affected by this sort of thing will feel that they are being cheated by the Bill of something which they clearly thought they were getting. I can see that, on the words which were used. There is a good deal of talk about the genesis of the Bill, but the only thing that will really interest those people is its speedy exodus.
I want to consider the provisions of the Bill in detail, as it might appear that I do not understand them, whereas I think I do. I understand that lawyers and people concerned with finance have approached this problem and dealt with it with great accuracy, and with their usual inhumanity. They have said:

"Yes, new money. We have the words of the Chancellor that humanity does not matter, and we are justified in limiting this thing as much as possible. We are justified in saying that it is only if you are bringing to the Government money which you have not previously brought that you are to have this relief, in the happy times of unemployment after the war." Consequently you create, in effect, a small deprivileged class, and you say to the ordinary citizen: "If you have sold your previous investments in Morris Motors or any other commercial enterprise and brought money to the Government during the war, all that money will be new money and treated in accordance with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's pledge."[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that is what I understand.

Mr. Stephen: The hon. and learned Member was not here at the beginning of the Debate.

Mr. Pritt: I am reading Sub-section (4). I am very willing to be told if I am wrong. Sub-section (4) of Clause 2 deals with money which has to be deducted. You there get, so to speak, the advantages of the Bill:
The aggregate amount of National Savings Certificates, Ulster Savings Certificates and amounts standing to … credit … in any savings bank as aforesaid.
The "said savings bank as aforesaid" is any account in the Post Office Savings Bank or a specified trustee savings bank. The vast bulk of the money covered by Sub-section (4) is money which the Government have already got. It seems to me that you are creating a special de-privileged class of people who have previously lent money to the Government instead of putting it into furniture or some purely private firm, or invested it, or kept it in their stockings, and the result is the typical inhumanity that you always get from legislators, financiers and others. You will have two people living in adjoining cottages, both rejoicing over a victory which has brought them unemployment and both applying for relief. One cottager will be told: "Because you saved money before the war and put it into a Government savings bank you cannot have the benefit of this Statute." The other will be told that because he was earning good money during the war and put his savings not into a Government savings bank before the war but into some


private enterprpise, and he took it out and put it into the Government's hands, he will be differently treated.
All the people affected by this matter will say: "We were told by Sir John Simon that we were to be allowed to keep the benefit of our war savings but we find ourselves not allowed to do so, while neighbours whose position is not very different from our own are allowed to keep them." This procedure creates the maximum amount of suspicion and bad faith in the Government. It must stop a great many people giving or lending their money to the Government when the Government are anxious to have it. There is the usual justification, which has all the appearance of the typical, niggardly and inhuman meanness which the public have been made to expect from Governments. I earnestly ask the Government to see that this is not the way to deal with this mater, which should be treated more broadly and simply.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. Stephen: I join in the criticism of the Bill. Probably all the previous speakers have been devoted supporters of the Government, but I am not a supporter of the Government. I have no more faith in them than I had in the previous Government. I took action in the House when this Government came into office to show what my views were. I sympathise with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in having to sponsor the present Bill. The position seems to have arisen because of a Government pledge given to us by Sir John Simon when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He probably gave the pledge without thoroughly examining the position beforehand; now the Government must try to carry out that pledge.
It is plain from the discussion which has taken place about the effect of the Bill that if the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, it will add very seriously to the anomalies which already characterise the pensions and unemployment assistance schemes in this country. The Supplementary Pensions Act was passed and its administration is being carried out now. I suppose that my experience is similar to that of other Members of Parliament. I can assure the Government that there is very widespread dissatisfaction with the present position. It is plain that the present proposal will add greatly to that

dissatisfaction and to the feeling of injustice in the country.
To the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) I should like to say that although I interrupted him on one point I had the justification of having asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to specify whether, if a person had an investment in, say, railway stocks, and sold it, and put it into, say, National Savings Certificates, this would be counted as new money. The Financial Secretary told him that it would not be new money. It would be the same as if it had been in the Co-operative Society or the Post Office Savings Bank or in anything else. Consequently, many of the comments of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith were irrelevant to the discussion. I can, however, understand the hon. and learned Member putting those comments to the Government because what he said appeared to be the rational interpretation of the Measure. It is an irrational Bill, and one would naturally be misled into thinking that the case instanced by the hon. and learned Member would lead to the person getting a benefit which a person who put his money into the savings bank would not get.
I want to ask how it is proposed to distinguish this new money. If a person has £300 in shares in a motor company, sells them and puts the money into Government securities, how is it proposed to ascertain where the money came from? Does it mean that in future, whenever an investment is made in one of these four categories, an investigator will go to the person and ask him where he got the money? Or will the question as to where the money came from not arise until the person becomes an applicant for his old age pension? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health shakes her head. Evidently, therefore, it is not proposed to wait until the individual becomes an applicant for a pension. I want to know, then, how it is proposed to ascertain whether the £300 which the person is claiming should be exempt from calculation in the determination of need was new money or not. The ascertainment must be made when the investment is made or at some subsequent date. Which of these two is it? If the ascertainment is to be made immediately an investment is made, it appears that everybody who takes out a Savings Certificate


will have to inform some investigator, possibly a snooper. The Financial Secretary shakes his head, so that I appear to be wrong again. Possibly the person who takes out a Savings Certificate will have to fill in a questionnaire saying where the money came from. It appears to me to be a mysterious business. If some such procedure is contemplated—I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that I am wrong again, or perhaps there is some physical weakness that makes heads on the Front Bench shake, and that I am being misled.
The whole point of the Bill is that when a person applies for unemployment assistance or a pension, £375 of his savings may be disregarded in the determination of need if it is what is described as war savings. They have to be savings that were made during a certain period. One must then have a test of what savings are. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) instanced the case of a person selling furniture and investing the money in Savings Certificates, and he asked whether that would be regarded as savings. Obviously there must be some test, and I would like the Government to say what it will be and when it will be made. Money invested in motor shares or railway stock, and taken out and put into Government securities is not, we have been told, savings. Suppose a person has £300 invested in an industrial company, sells the investment and buys Savings Certificates, and he is asked, "Is not this the £300 that you had in such and such a company?" He replies, "No, I lost that at the races. I took it out, went to the races and had a bad patch. This £300 is money that I made when I had a good patch at the races." How is it proposed to trace the money and decide whether it was previously in an investment or not?
I want to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), that while it is true that the Bill is an attempt to carry out a pledge by Lord Simon, it will inflict a great injustice on the people who were thrifty before the war as compared with those who have exercised their thrift only during the war. An hon. Member opposite gave the case of the man who is in the Services and is denied the opportunity of saving because he is getting only 2s. a day. That man, who saved some

money before the war and then gave his service to the country, will be subjected to a loss of income if he applies for unemployment assistance or a pension, as compared with the person who does not do service during the war, but is working and is able to save. It is shameful treatment of the men in the Services. I wonder what the men in the Army, Navy and Air Force will think about it. I sometimes wonder, when I see the way in which the Government are carrying on the war, whether they are trying specifically to lose it, or whether it is simply a case of mental defectives having got into Government positions. Things have often happened during the war that could only be justified on the basis of the mental deficiency of the people responsible or else because of some sinister, evil purpose in seeking to lose the war. The effect that this Measure will have on the millions of people who are put into this rotten position, as compared with other people who are in industry and not in the Services, shows that it is a Measure for which only feeble mindedness or worse could be responsible.
The Financial Secretary should recognise the opinion in the House about this Bill. Not a voice has been raised in support of it. If every voice on all sides has been critical of a Measure, it is usually regarded as an impossible Measure. I suggest, therefore, that the Financial Secretary should withdraw the Bill and consult with the Leader of the House with a view to the department of the Cabinet that deals with these questions reconsidering the whole position. This is an unreasonable Bill and simply an injudicious attempt to carry out a silly pledge given by Lord Simon who had not possibly any knowledge of the working of the means test. It was a promise given by him in a moment of excitement when he thought he was giving some aid to the propaganda in favour of more money being invested in War Loan. The Government are not justified in wasting the time of the House in continuing discussion on the Bill. It has been shown by previous speakers to be impossible in working. The Financial Secretary should put it to the Government, since the pledge of Lord Simon has been shown to lead to the silly results that this Bill will lead to, that the real way to fulfil the pledge is to abolish the means test altogether, and in


that way give encouragement to the people to give what assistance they can to the State in carrying on the administration for the good of the community.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: My right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary began his speech in moving the Second Reading of the Bill by telling us that the matter was a complicated one, and that in consequence the Bill, although short, was very complicated. I entirely agree that the Bill is very complicated. I think that that fact completely damns the Bill, for this reason: What is the purpose of the Bill and of the pledge? It is simply to encourage people to lend money to the Government. What sort of people are to be encouraged? Not wealthy people who can employ legal advice, but ordinary, simple people who have made small savings in the past or even. perhaps, who have not saved at all in the past. Those are the people whom it is desired to encourage to lend money to the Government. Surely, anything that is vital to that movement must be simple, so that ordinary people can understand it. What is the use of producing a Bill the purpose of which is to encourage humble people to do something if it is so complicated that they cannot understand it?
The reason why this Bill is so complicated is that its framers have taken an arbitrary view of what in their opinion is new money, and they have tried to translate that into the language of the Bill. We have had only one commonsense description of new money in this House this afternoon, and that was the description given by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery), who pointed out that for everybody new money could be created only by the Bank of England, and that, as regards the individual, new money was money that he acquired and that he had not got before. That definition completely holds the field, and no one has attempted to challenge it. If we follow that out, new money for the Government is money which the Government acquire and which they had not had before. That is a definition which anybody should be able to understand and which might reasonably be followed. Let me give an example of how the idea which is enshrined in this Bill will work. Supposing there are two

men who have each saved £100 before the war started. One man puts his £100 away in a drawer and locks it up. The other puts his £100 into the Post Office Savings Bank. They both hear appeals on the wireless to lend money to the Government and each decides to lend his £100. My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that the man who takes his money out of the drawer and lends it to the Government is lending the Government new money, but that the man who takes his money out of the Savings Bank is lending the Government old money.

Captain Crookshank: That is so.

Mr. Lewis: With all respect, it appears to me to be absolute nonsense. In both cases the money was earned before the war—[An HON. MEMBER: "And saved."]—and saved before the war. Supposing I borrow £100 from my bank and buy some Savings Certificates, is that new money? Or suppose I have £100 already in one of these investments, placed there before the war, and after the war has broken out I sell the securities. According to my right hon. and gallant Friend, if I lend the money to the Government it is not new money. Supposing I use that money to pay some workmen who, having got it by way of wages, lend it to the Government. Why should that process make it new money? It seems to me that the more we follow this line of argument the more absurd we find in practice is this underlying idea with regard to new money. As regards the fairness or unfairness between individuals, I thought that a particularly good example was that of the man who, having served in the war, had savings that he had made before the war and who would not be able to plead this Bill, as compared with the man working in a munitions factory during the war and who, having made savings during the war, would be able to plead the Bill.
I have ventured to criticise the Bill, as have some other hon. Members, but in fairness to my right hon. and gallant Friend I should not leave the matter there, because it is no use criticising something unless one has an alternative to suggest. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer clearly has to make good the pledge that his predecessor gave. This Bill is not a satisfactory way of doing it.


Having gone as far as they have in giving the pledge, there is really only one way out of it for the Government, and that is to say that in future all savings up to the value of £375 will not be taken into account for purposes of public assistance. I cannot see any reasonable point at which we could stop between the pledge and that point. Otherwise it would be open to the extremely grave objection of being very complicated and, therefore, liable to give rise to a suspicion of doubt and a check to everything which we desire to encourage, namely, the lending of money to the Government. After all, the pledge should never have been made, and if there is to be a lot of feeling about the way in which it has been redeemed, there will be doubt and anxiety as to the effect of saving after the war. The only way is to go further and not to mind if it does result in a certain amount of money being spent on public assistance which otherwise would not have been; it will, at any rate, have the advantage that there will be a marked encouragement for people to save money, not only now when the Government are appealing to them to do so, but at all times.
I understand that there is not to be a Division on this Second Reading; at any rate, I do not understand that there will be one. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I did not gather that there would be. I hope that the Government will not take that to mean that although the House does not like the Bill, hon. Members will not do any more about it and that they need not worry. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will appreciate, at least, some of the criticisms which have been put forward this afternoon, and therefore I hope he will see whether he cannot do something to get over the difficulty even if it should necessitate withdrawing the Bill.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: Anyone reading this Bill would find it highly complicated. Since it came out last Thursday I have read it half a dozen times in order to find out what it means. I tried to get into my mind the impression that it conformed to what I thought was the intention of the House of Commons and that it meant to give to the old age pensioners some little benefit which they had not already got under the previous Act of Parliament.

That was my intention when I read the Bill. When I got to the date of it, 3rd September, 1939, I again tried to bring that fact into conformity with the fact that all savings after that date would be regarded as standing to the credit of the man or woman who had it in his or her name at that particular date. I thought it was the intention that money which had been saved up prior to that date would be regarded as coming within the terms of this Bill. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary had some doubt in his mind, but anyone listening to his statement must have felt that he was trying to keep back as long as possible the unpopular part of this Measure. It was difficult to understand from him what new money meant and what were the implications of this Bill. We are all smarting under it. He has come to tell us that what we expected from the pledge is not forthcoming.
I look upon the present House of Commons as a reflection of the thoughts of the Members when they discuss a Measure. Everybody has spoken against this provision, and one would have expected the Government to say, "If that is the expression of opinion of the House, we must conform to it." I am getting tired of being pledged to a Government which does not consult the opinions of the House. I have given my pledge to do all I can to support the Government in this war situation, but it is only on the understanding that they consult and obtain the opinion of the House of Commons, and not come to us and say, "This is what a few people think." The Chancellor gave this pledge, under the last Government, mind you, when we had no power to shift the Chancellor, and when he was backed up by the whole of the Tory party. Now we have a different Government, and one which ought to take into consideration all the opinions in the House. That is not being done. I say to the Financial Secretary that there is keen disappointment, among the old age pensioners particularly, about what is happening. On Saturday I went to a meeting called for the purpose of examining what has happened in regard to old age pensioners. There were many expressions of thanks for what had been done in getting some supplementary pensions for a number of people, but there is one case which I must relate to the


House. A man and woman came to me after the meeting, and the man said, "I have worked in a mine all my life and brought up 10 children. They have now married and have gone out into the world. In that period I saved £120, which had in the Co-operative Society. I understood the Government to mean that if I put that money in War Savings, I should get the benefit of it and they would not penalise me." He transferred that money to War Savings at 3 per cent., whereas I think he was getting 4 per cent. in the Co-operative Society. He asked me for my opinion. He had been before the determinations committee, and they said that it would be assessed against him. I said to the man, "There is a Bill before the House of Commons which, if I am correct, will put that money right in your case." Evidently I did not read correctly, or the understanding which I had has not been borne out. That is the opinion throughout the country in regard to this Determination of Needs Bil.
The Financial Secretary has some kind of humour, but it was with a grim humour that he said to-day that there may be before the tribunal cases which may have to be re-examined. The Financial Secretary says that some money may have been saved by such people since they came under the provisions of the Supplementary Pensions Act, and that that may have to be reviewed. Has he thought out this Bill properly, or is he trying to delude us? Nobody who has been able to save a penny under the provisions of that Act will get any benefit. It is an impossible situation. Some good m Ay have been done for people receiving unemployment assistance, but for the old age pensioners there is no benefit at all. I do not want to vote against the Government, but if this goes to a Division I shall know which way to vote.
I want the Government to make the House of Commons a consulting Chamber. This is not merely a "talking shop" now; it might have been in the past, when there were two hostile parties, but now, for the good of the country, we have got down to fundamentals; and the free expression of opinion of the House of Commons ought to provide the Government with the guiding principle of any Measure. With all respect to Members who have spoken from this side,

I would say that probably two of the best speeches against this Bill have come from the other side of the House—the most critical and the most substantial speeches. The two Members who have made those speeches were supporters of the old règime, particularly the hon. Member who spoke last. There is only one course that the Government can take with credit to themselves, and that is to withdraw this Measure, and bring in something on the lines of what we think ought to be done. There will be no satisfaction in the House of Commons or in the country until something better than this is done for our aged people.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I would like to add my appeal to the Financial Secretary to accept what has now become the unanimous feeling of the House about this Bill. I agree with the hon. Member opposite, that the Bill is far too complicated and that its machinery is cumbrous; but I do not think that that is the all-important matter. I am sure the Financial Secretary will agree that the real test of the Bill is: Does it or does it not carry out the pledge which was given? If he could convince the House—which is not unwilling to be convinced—that the Bill carried out that pledge, none of us would have a word to say, except on technical or verbal points in Committee. But if, after sitting through this Debate—and I am glad to say that he has sat through the Debate and heard practically every word of it—he can remain of the opinion, which, no doubt, he held when he started, that this Bill gives effect to the pledge of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should despair of his capacity for understanding what the Bill is about.
It has been said that for the genesis of this Bill we have to go back to a speech by Lord Simon on 23rd April. I do not think that that is the true genesis. I think that when the late Lord Chancellor made that speech he had in mind the Debates that had taken place previously on the Second Reading, and, I think, on one subsequent stage, of the Old Age Pensions supplementation Bill. If he did not refer to those Debates, I am quite certain that he had them in mind. During those Debates Members on all sides of the House said, not to the Chancellor, but to those in charge of the Bill, that here were the Government, for


the first time in the history of pensions legislation, introducing a means test. The whole gravamen of our opposition to that Bill was that it introduced a retrograde policy by applying a means test—and, indeed, a household means test—to social insurance. We said, "If you feel bound to introduce a means test, at any rate modify it; do not penalise thrift." Many of us made speeches—I made innumerable speeches—on just that point. We were told, in reply, that the Government would concede that point, at any rate to some extent. It is true that that was connected up with the other appeal which had been made in connection with the War Savings Campaign, and that the two things converged on that point.

Captain Crookshank: indicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman: I hope that the Financial Secretary will not be too dogmatic about it. I know that he has one speech in front of him, but it is not to that speech that I am referring. I remember when the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said during, I think, the Committee stage, with reference to this exemption of savings, that the Government were postponing it until after the war, and the right hon. Member who was then Minister of Labour and who is now Secretary of State for Scotland replied that the hon. Member was quite mistaken, and that it was to come into operation then. What was to come into operation then? The exemption of the war savings of old age pensioners from the application of this new principle of the means test in social insurance. It was said, time after time, on behalf of the Government, "We cannot introduce it into this Bill; it will have to be done in a special Bill. Something will be said about it in reference to the Finance Bill."
What everybody had in mind was the question of benefit for those old age pensioners who were to apply for supplemental pensions under this latest Act. I do not think that that can be denied. The evidence for it is that every one of us, in any part of the House, who keeps in touch with his constituency has been since that date overwhelmed with inquiries from old age pensioners who have some savings, and who ask, "When are we going to get the Bill? When are we going to understand what is the new

money, so that we may make our arrangements accordingly?" The whole thing was done with reference to those persons who were, here and now, to get supplementary benefit. That is what the pledge was about. I ask the Financial Secretary to tell us how can any old age pensioner to-day who is applying now for a supplementary pension, conceivably benefit under this Bill? What provision is there in this Bill, which is said to be the fulfilment of a pledge to these old age pensioners, to give them any advantage?
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) was under the impression that if people had saved money before the war and had not lent it to the Government, they could, by lending it now, obtain an advantage over people who had lent it then. That is wrong: the hon. and learned Member had overlooked Sub-section (3) of Clause 2. But it would have been much better if the hon. and learned Member had been right, because then some people who are now applying for supplementary benefit, and who have been thrifty, in the past, would be benefiting to that extent under this Measure. But the Measure has been carefully drafted to prevent any pre-war savings being exempted at all. The inference is irresistible, therefore, that no old age pensioner now applying for supplementary pension can derive any benefit whatever from the Bill, because he cannot have saved anything since 3rd September, 1939. If he were in a position to save anything and lend it to the Government, he could not have qualified for a supplementary pension. The supplementary pension is based on a subsistence level—with some modifications, no doubt; but deliberately imposed so that anybody in a position to save shall not be entitled to a supplementary pension. It becomes obvious that this Bill is of no benefit whatever to the old age pensioners of to-day.
I do not say that it may not be of some benefit to somebody some day. The time may come when people who are not old enough to be old age pensioners now will become old age pensioners, and if during this war they have saved money and lent it to the Government, they may benefit under the Bill. But that indicates exactly what my hon. Friend was rather laughed at by the then Minister of Labour for suggesting—that after the war is over


we shall still have a household means test applied to old people in the assessment of their pensions. In those circumstances, this Bill may be of some benefit to them; but it is perfectly clear that it is of no benefit—and that it is deliberately designed to be of no benefit—to any old age pensioner to-day. I am very ready to be convinced that I am mistaken about that, but I do not see how I can be mistaken. It is not merely my own view; it is the view of everybody, on either side of the House, who has taken part in this Debate.
If there had been a case that no old age pensioner could profit by a single farthing from the provisions of this Bill, how in the world could it be the fulfilment of the pledge to these people? I would like to echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). This criticism, this bitterness, because undoubtedly there is bitterness in this House—it is not merely the bitterness that will be felt by every old age pensioner to-morrow—is reluctant. Certainly, nobody wants to embarrass the Government. What we are seeking to do in appealing to them to withdraw this Measure is to relieve them from embarrassment of their own creating. If there had been anybody in this House prepared to support them in debate, the position might have been different, but there has not been a single voice raised in support of this Measure. Nobody in this House who has heard the Debate, and certainly nobody who has contributed to it, believes that the Measure is the fulfilment of that pledge which it was designed to fulfil. Can we all be wrong? Can we all be out of step but the Financial Secretary?

Mr. Quibell: Yes, he said so.

Mr. Silverman: Then I would rather be out of step than in step. Does he expect that he is going to be a one-man army? Let him be it by all means, if he thinks he can win the war. Let him try. I believe that the aim is to get as much unity as possible and for us all to march in step together. I am reminded of an old saying that used to amuse me: "If everybody in the room says you are drunk and you know you are not drunk, go to bed, anyhow." If everybody in this House says that this is not the fulfilment of the pledge, then withdraw it, anyhow, and bring in a Measure which will enable

the House to agree that the pledge is being redeemed. If that appeal is rejected, we can only assume that it is deliberately rejected and that the Bill has been deliberately designed not to fulfil the pledge. That would mean that these old people, waiting to see how the pledge was to be redeemed, had been deliberately tricked and trapped. It is necessary that the Government should not only not commit such a mean act of deception, but that they should make it clear to this House and to the country that they are not committing such an action, and the only way that they can convince us of that is to withdraw this Measure.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Samuel: Hon. Members on this side of the House—I have mentioned this in Debate before—hate the means test as much as any Member opposite, and we have always regretted that there should have been the necessity for it. I have always been worried to see a man who has worked very hard and made savings in no better position—in fact, often in a worse position—than the man who has made, perhaps, more and has spent everything. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave some explanation of this matter, on a recent Measure, and to a certain extent it was satisfactory, but the proposal did not wipe out the means test. This test, I believe, was first instituted on account of something which was known as Poplarism, which might very conceivably again occur. I was very anxious that men should make savings right from the very beginning of the war; that workmen and others should have opportunities, as they had during the last war, to earn money from regular employment—opportunities such as they had not had perhaps for some years—and should be able to make savings. I asked the Minister of Labour a question in this connection in January last as follows:
whether he will consider the advisability of introducing provisions whereby all savings invested during the war in Defence Loans and War Savings Certificates will in the future not be taken into account under any means test for unemployment allowances?
The reply was—
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the existing provisions make substantial allowances for savings. The question of whether savings of the two classes referred to should be accorded further allowances is receiving consideration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th January, 1940; col. 194. Vol. 356.]


I spoke to the Minister, and he told me exactly what the Financial Secretary said to-day, that certain negotiations were then in progress. I asked him when I could repeat the Question, and he said "presently." I watched the thing very carefully. In April the negotiations had come to a head and it was announced that savings of £375, which was equivalent, with the rate of interest, to £500, would be exempt. I was satisfied that the savings would be the equivalent of £500 and that men who were unfortunate enough to become unemployed and subjected to the means test, would be allowed to leave that sum out of account. I have always held that it is a good thing for people to have savings. That has been recognised already in the case of old age pensioners and in other respects, and substantial amounts are allowed before the holders are called upon to pay anything at all.
Afterwards, I also approached the late Chancellor of the Exchequer because I had an idea that it might be a good thing for the people if we did what we were forced to do in the last war, and which we all hated at the beginning, namely, to borrow on securities and to borrow for loan after loan. I asked him whether in order to help workmen who had not the money available, they were allowed to borrow from their employers and so subscribe larger sums to Government loans, repaying their employers by degrees, instead of having so much a week deducted for smaller amounts. I understood that the Treasury said—and I believe they were right from their point of view—that this would be inflation, so the matter went no further. There is no doubt that, if one could do that, people would subscribe perhaps more than they are doing, but that would be inflation. It may be necessary to have inflation. I cannot conceive myself how we are to bridge this enormous gap without some sort of controlled inflation, if such a thing is possible. But I did wish to make it easier for working people to subscribe more largely than they otherwise might have done. The idea was turned down for the reason I have stated.
I am very pleased to see the introduction of the present Measure. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone as far as possible. I am hopeful that the £375 actually means £500, although I am

not quite sure about that yet. There is another point about the Income Tax. Those who, during this war, have the good fortune to be able to come within the clutches of the Income Tax collector, not having done so before, will also have the pleasure, no doubt, of paying Income Tax on savings lent to the Government in addition to paying it on their wages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, will, I hope, also benefit later on, as he generally does. If we can get hundreds of thousands and perhaps millions of people making savings during the war, he will also benefit in the form of Death Duty. The family or successors of anyone dying with £101 in savings, will have the pleasure of paying 1 per cent. on that sum in Death Duty.

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member is going beyond the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Samuel: I cannot see why old age pensioners who lend anything to-day should expect special privileges, but if they can make savings there is no reason why they should not be exempt. As far as the general run of people who, during the war, are able to make savings are concerned, I think they are being amply repaid for anything that they may entrust to the Government, and I think that they can, rightly, trust the Government.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. G. Macdonald: I want to add to the appeal already made to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. This question of new money seems to be the only contention between us to-night. If his definition of new money is money which has been invested in war savings since 3rd September, we have a feeling that it will be very unfair to a great number of people in this country. I do not quarrel with him on the question of whether he has carried out, in this Bill, the words used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in April last. Maybe he has, but I am certain that he has not carried out what we on this side of the House expected when that pledge was given. In any case, he is doing a very serious injustice to many people in this country. I am thinking of the cases of two "partial compensation" men, who accepted lump sums in settlement, one before 3rd September and one after that date. The one who accepted settlement before 3rd September received £300 and as he was in


work he had no need to spend it. He invested it in War Loan as did the other man who received his settlement subsequent to 3rd September. Now the Financial Secretary has told us that when this war is over, if both men happen to be unemployed, one will get benefit and the other will not. Surely he cannot expect the House of Commons to stand for that? We had decided not to oppose this Bill because we interpreted this Clause ourselves, in a certain way, but I want to tell the Financial Secretary, quite frankly, that although I do not as a rule make a practice of voting against this Government—I try to be loyal—I shall feel compelled to assist those who want to force a Division if I am told that a differentiation is to be made between these two men.
At the same time, I do not think there is any need for a Division. The Financial Memorandum is drawn in very wide language so that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be able to accept an Amendment on the Committee stage. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) wants to take the attention of the Financial Secretary away from me, but I would say to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that I think he could accept an Amendment which would not mean a great deal to the Exchequer. We must visualise a time when the war is over, when a number of people may be unemployed, and we say that those who invested money which they saved before 3rd September and those who did the same after that date, ought to be treated alike. I cannot see this country or the House of Commons standing for anything short of this and I would ask the Financial Secretary to give sympathetic consideration to an Amendment on those lines. There are many old age pensioners who have been refused supplementary pensions because they happened to have invested money, which they saved before 3rd September, in War Savings. I cannot believe that the Chancellor or the Financial Secretary would want to penalise these people. I thought that the case made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) would have brought a concession from the Front Bench. He told us of a man who saved a little money before 3rd September and who was now in the Army. This soldier, who is anxious to fight and risk his life,

put his money into War Savings. A munition worker has, perhaps, invested in War Savings since 3rd September, yet when the war is over, and they are both, perhaps, unemployed, the Bill says that these two men shall be treated differently. The Financial Secretary has heard the Debate, during which there has not been one speech in favour of the Bill. I hope he will give sympathetic consideration to the case we have put before him.

6.50 p.m.

Major Procter: This afternoon, in reply to a constituent regarding the War Savings that would be disregarded in fixing the amount of supplementary pensions, I said that if anyone had invested £375 in War Savings that sum would be disregarded. Later, I came into the Chamber and listened to my right hon. and gallant Friend trying to explain what this Bill meant. Now I am given to understand that if a person invested £375 in War Loan before the war, such an investment would be taken into account and the old age pensioner would be penalised for his or her thrift. This policy seems to me to be foolish and to lack the generosity one would expect from my right hon. and gallant Friend. It will make for a great deal of bitterness among aged people, who will feel that the Government has been niggardly in trying to save a few pounds at their expense. I would ask the Financial Secretary a question. Can he tell the House what would be the cost to the Government, if he were to make this concession to the old age pensioner? Is it worth while producing such disappointment for such a small amount as this concession would mean? I would also ask what is the principle whereby a person who has invested £375 is not permitted to sell old loan and buy new loan, and thus get the benefits to which his patriotism and thrift entitle him? Am I right in stating that if a man has £375 and has invested it in building shares or railroad stock he could sell his shares and buy war saving stock and thus be included among the beneficiaries of this Bill? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I hope my right hon. and gallant Friend will take note of the arguments put forward so forcibly by hon. Gentlemen opposite with whom I do not often agree. On this issue, however, I am entirely with them,


and if they force a Division I am prepared to vote with them for I want our aged people to get the maximum benefit from the new Pensions Act. To spoil such a grand Measure by penalising thrift and patriotism not only does a great disservice to old people, but to the National Government itself.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I rise to make an appeal. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) put the matter clearly. In the course of three and a half hours' debate there has not been a single speech in favour of this Bill. My right hon. and gallant Friend is, usually, very clear, but there was difficulty in following him this afternoon—

Captain Crookshank: Because I was interrupted.

Mr. Lindsay: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) put a point which must be answered. He and the hon. Member for Ince said that when we talk of new money we do not exclude money which was previously invested in some other form of savings and has been transferred to one of these four categories. I speak for a constituency in which there is a great problem with regard to supplementary payments. The object of this Measure is to help to gather in the largest possible amount of additional savings for the war. That is good on paper, but when you come to the point that a person who saves before 3rd September, and another who saves after that date are to be put in different positions, you create a differential class. That was never the intention of Lord Simon's pledge, and I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend either to move an Amendment or to agree to one providing that where money is in National Savings Certificates under any of the four categories, whether it is new or old, that money shall not be taken into account. Otherwise, you will create grave injustice for those who are unemployed and those who are old. We, in this House, are not devoted to old-fashioned parties. We are all supporting the Government, but from time to time we have what is known as a council of war. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) put it as well as anybody could. When the whole House has seen the light, is it not time that

my right hon. and gallant Friend gave in and agreed with the majority opinion, unless there is good reason to the contrary? I, therefore, appeal to my right hon. and gallant Friend to make some form of concession.

6.59 p.m.

Mr. George Griffiths: I do not desire to prolong this Debate, because I know there are others who desire to say something on another subject which, to them, may be more important. But to many of us in the House this is a very important question, and if the Press could only give a full report to what the Financial Secretary has said I am sure there would be more consternation in the country to-morrow morning than I have known for years. I do not believe that anybody who listened to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 23rd April felt any doubt that "new money" meant new money to the Government, from any source other than Government stocks or Savings Certificates, whenever it was lent. I know of a widow in my division who transferred some savings made by her husband in the last war. She has scraped to save a bit of money and three weeks ago put £375 into new Savings Certificates, because I said to her, "If you transfer this money from the Barnsley British Building Society to War Savings, it will not be taken into account." That £375 was supposed to be new money. I know he did not say so definitely, but everybody who listened to Sir John Simon, now Lord Simon had the impression that money that was transferred into War Savings Certificates, from whatever source other than Government stock, would be new money. This lady will lose not less than £3 10s. per annum, having transferred the money out of the Barnsley British Building Society into War Savings Certificates. Now she is, naturally, as keen as mustard, and not only she but the majority of people who have been looking forward to getting a supplementary pension, when they read tomorrow morning the published statement of the Financial Secretary, will be bitterly disappointed, and they will not have much joy about winning this war.
This week I could hardly walk down the street of the little town in which I live without this, that or the other man


or woman coming to me about the supplementary pension, and I said to them, "Well, we are discussing this matter in the House next Wednesday, and perhaps I shall be able to bring a little hope to you next week-end." There is no hope in this, only bitter disappointment. We want to be loyal to the Government in the effort to win the war. There is not a man in this House, there is not a man or woman in the country who does not want to crush Hitler. The Minister of Information talks about the morale of the race. This Bill, I say, will help to depress the morale of those people who were looking forward to their supplementary pension. It means such a lot, not only to the old people but to their sons and daughters. It affects not only 2,000,000 old age pensioners. I should say it affects at least 12,000,000 people indirectly. Surely the interests of those 12,000,000 people should he taken into consideration. I hope that the Financial Secretary will say, "In the last three hours I have had my eyes opened, and I am prepared to withdraw this Bill and, irrespective of where the money comes from, if it is invested in War Loan or War Savings Certificates up to £375, it will not count in future."

7.5 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I shall occupy only a few minutes, but it is important that attention should be drawn to what was actually stated in this House by the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer and by other Cabinet Ministers. When the ex-Chancellor made his speech and referred to this question of new money, a Member on the Front Bench on this side of the House—I believe it was the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams)—asked him how that applied, not to the future, but the present old age pension; and the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer said it would be arranged so that old age pensioners would get the benefit. At a later stage, I rose to express my opinion of the Chancellor and other Members of the Government. My actual opinion of the ex-Chancellor and other Members of the Government is not printable, but it is a correct estimate. Here this afternoon Members of this House, honest, well-meaning supporters of the present Coalition Government, have told us that they received such-and-such an impression from the ex-Chancellor's speech, and as a consequence went to

their constituents and made such-and-such observations. I never at any time was taken in by the ex-Chancellor or by any Members of the Government.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I was.

Mr. Gallacher: I know a lot of us were, but I have had more experience. I spoke here, and said there was not an old age pensioner who would get any advantage from the proposal; that the scheme would only come into operation after the war, and would apply only to those who had contributed during the war. The present Secretary of State for Scotland, who was then Minister of Labour, interrupted me and said I was misrepresenting the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and in order to prove it he quoted what the Chancellor had said and the observation made by the hon. Member for Don Valley, I believe, on the question of how the old age pensioner was affected, and the reply that the Chancellor made. After that, is it any wonder that Members on this side of the House were deceived and were led to believe that the old age pensioners of to-day were to get some advantage from this Bill? I say that there has been a deliberate deception of Members by the Chancellor and by the then Minister of Labour when he said that I was misrepresenting the Chancellor. I ask any Member of the House, in view of the speech made by the Financial Secretary to-day, whether I misrepresented the Chancellor in the statement I made, and whether any honest representative of the people of this country can, in any circumstances, support a Bill of this kind.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Mathers: My experience is like that of a good many other Members, and our opinion has been forcibly expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths). I am certain that all of us have, by letter and by personal contact, knowledge of how old age pensioners have been looking forward to this Bill. I have been waiting for it to be produced in order to be able to explain this matter to old age pensioners who have been asking me for advice about the withdrawal of money from other savings, in order to put it into War Loan and clearly and definitely to inform them that the position as far as the first £375 of their savings is concerned, will be quite secure,


in accordance, as I understood it, with the statement of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I think the position is that we do not find this Bill attempting to carry out Lord Simon's pledge. My opinion is that it is an attempt to whittle down what he said. Finding that many people were withdrawing their funds from such organisations as those which have been referred to, relying upon the obvious intention of the late Chancellor's statement, those who were affected by the withdrawals have obviously made appeals to the Treasury. The result is that a Bill of this kind has been brought in, which destroys the hopes that the old age pensioners had of the Measure. It is absolutely useless for immediate application. It is true that, later on, perhaps after the war is over, some benefits will come from the terms of the Bill, but for immediate application to the old age pensioners' case, as far as I can see, it is absolutely worthless, and I join with those who say that the Bill should be withdrawn. As far as any immediate benefit is concerned, it will not make any difference to them. The Treasury should reconsider the position in the light of the very strong opinion that is held in the House, and when we come back from our very short Recess, we can get down to a very much simpler Bill than this. I could not send this complicated Bill to the old age pensioners. It would only give them what the reading of it has nearly given me—a headache. I should not be giving them any clear information at all. I therefore think it would be a wise thing to withdraw the Bill and bring in another later on which could be made retrospective to the same date, and which would, more definitely, give effect, if not to the actual wording of Lord Simon's statement, at least to its spirit, and to what I firmly believe was his intention when he made his speech.

7.15 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: We are to have a discussion later on the very important statement made the other day on India, and I suggest that it might be wise not to press the Bill at the moment. It is a very complicated Bill. It aims at doing a very simple thing, but it upsets many preconceived

ideas of Members and of the public outside. I have read the speech of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I agree that, on a strict interpretation, the Bill might be justified. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is a matter of opinion. The House, however, has taken a different line. It was generally understood by the House and by the public outside that if a man had invested in war savings whenever he got his money, either before or after the war, it would be exempt when his claim to a supplementary allowance was being considered. I ask the Government not to press the Bill at the moment, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been consulted—he has not been present, I suppose for a very good reason—he will perhaps consider redrafting or altering the Measure.

7.16 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I am prepared to give an answer to the Debate now, if it suits the House. We have covered a great deal of the field, and at least it is right to give an answer. I will do my best to deal with the points. First of all, I should like to disabuse Members, some of whom talked rather as if this was almost a small private affair of my own. Of course, this is an important Government Measure, agreed by all Members of the Government, several of whose names are on the back of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor is, after all, still a Member of the Government, though he does not now adorn this House. He has a perfectly clear recollection of what was intended by his words, and, reading them, there is not any question as to the interpretation which I put upon them and which I explained was the right one. While we have heard a great deal on the subject of old age pensioners—I take no exception to that—the Bill is not, of course, as might be thought from some of the speeches that we have heard, a scheme in itself to assist old age pensioners. It is not a supplementary old age pensions improvement Bill, but a Bill designed to carry out a pledge the object of which was to increase savings in war-time, which is quite another thing. It may or may not be the case that a supplementary pensions Bill or any other enactment should be amended for a good reason of its own. That is not what I was concerned to argue.


What I had to put before the House was that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who opened the Budget on 23rd April, gave a pledge on behalf of the Government. That pledge, and the interpretation of it, has been endorsed by the present Government, and, in order to put that pledge into an Act of Parliament, this Bill is introduced. I should have thought that anyone reading the pledge itself would have no doubt as to what was meant, but it appears that some Members have apparently advised their constituents in another sense. The words are perfectly clear. In opening the Debate this afternoon, I went out of my way to remind the House of the general context, and I think the House agreed with me in my description of the back-ground and the events leading up to the Bill. If we go back to the beginning, this matter had nothing to do with supplementary old age pensions, because they had not yet been introduced; it will be seen from the former Chancellor's speech that it concerned primarily unemployment assistance.

Mr. G. Griffiths: No.

Captain Crookshank: It is no good the hon. Member saying "No." This matter was raised in November, and all the questions affected dealt with unemployment assistance. On 23rd April, 1940, my Noble Friend said:
I am informed that in some quarters there has been a hesitation in making full use of the opportunities for small savings on the ground that, in the event of the individual hereafter losing his employment, and continuing unemployed until he is obliged to apply for unemployment assistance, his war savings might be taken into account in determining the amount of assistance to which he would be entitled.
Alter some further remarks, my Noble Friend was interrupted by the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), who asked:
The old age pensioners, too?
At the end of his remarks, my Noble Friend dealt with that interruption. He said:
I explained about the supplementary old age pensions, that the pensioner applying for one was not to be treated worse than he would be treated under the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Mr. G. Griffiths: There you are.

Captain Crookshank: My Noble Friend continued:

It follows that the new arrangement will also apply to the calculation of supplementary pensions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1940; cols. 82·3, Vol. 360.]

Mr. Griffiths: Hear, hear.

Captain Crookshank: I am not denying that my Noble Friend said that. What I was saying was that originally the question had to do with the reluctance to make full use of the opportunities for small savings because of the effect of such saving on claims for unemployment assistance. At that time there was no such thing as supplementary old age pensions, because the Bill had not been brought before the House. Naturally, when the Act dealing with supplementary old age pensions was placed on the Statute Book, what was originally intended to deal with the problem of unemployment assistance was very properly extended to cover supplementary old age pensions. It also followed, although it was not stated in terms, that it ought to cover blind pensions as well. As the House wishes to discuss another subject, I cannot go into details about every question which has been put to me, but when the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) says that the old age pensioners are being deceived—

Mr. Gallacher: I did not say that. I said that hon. Members on this side had been deceived.

Captain Crookshank: I am sorry if I have misinterpreted the hon. Member, but certainly it has been said by several hon. Members that no old age pensioners will get any benefit from the Bill. In reply to that, I would say that no one could make a categorical statement unless he could go into the case of every old age pensioner who applied for a supplementary pension, but the likelihood is that quite a number will benefit from this Bill, because I think hon. Members have overlooked the fact that the assessment of supplementary old age pensions covers the same principles as in the case of unemployment assistance namely that the question of the household comes in. Hon. Members may say that an old age pensioner could not have saved very much since the beginning of the war, but it does not follow that some of the members of his household, whose capital has to be taken into account in assessing the allowance to the old age pensioner, have not saved in that period.

Mr. Buchanan: The old age pensioner would get no allowance if he was capable of saving such a large sum.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member has not understood me. This is a household question. Somebody in the household may have saved sufficient to make all the difference.

Mr. Buchanan: The fact is that in making a claim for a supplementary old age pension, the household income is taken into account, and if the household income were so high as to allow a man to make these savings, his father would not qualify for a supplementary old age pension.

Mr. Magnay: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the Debate I raised the question of what constitutes a household and I was ruled out of Order, but hon. Members are now being allowed to discuss all the implications of it.

Mr. Speaker: As I was not in the Chair when the Ruling was given, I certainly cannot deal with it now.

Captain Crookshank: The point I was making was that the income taken into account is the income of the household, and the hon. Member said that some of the old age pensioners would have got no supplementary old age pension because the capital of some of the members of the household—

Mr. Buchanan: I did not say that. If an old age pensioner applies for a supplementary pension, what is taken into account is income and capital. What I said was that if one of the family had an income that would allow him to save this sum, then the father would get no supplementary old age pension.

Captain Crookshank: The person might have saved the money before.

Mr. Stephen: Savings before will not be taken into account, because they will not be new money.

Captain Crookshank: The money may have been saved since then.

Hon. Members: Withdraw the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members are wasting time. [Interruption.] Hon. Members ought not to cheer themselves for doing what is not right.

Captain Crookshank: It is by no means impossible that, in the case of some persons who have been denied supplementary old age pensions on the assessment of the capital which has been taken into account, if one now disregards war savings, they may very well get something which they are not getting to-day.

Mr. Silverman: It is quite impossible.

Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member says it is quite impossible, but that is a matter of fact which we cannot get round. Let hon. Members bear in mind that we are not merely dealing in this Bill with old age pensioners, but we are trying to produce a scheme by which the pledge of my Noble Friend will be put into legislative form, so that in future, and possibly in the very distant future, it will be possible to identify what are war savings. What we are trying to do is to make it possible, after the war—it may be 20 years, 40 years or even 60 years, and it must be remembered that it is possible to make savings on behalf of children—if they unfortunately ever have to make application, that there will be a method of distinguishing the amount of money they actually saved during the war. By the system of a certificate that can be done. Let us not be carried away too far in discussing the Bill in terms of the immediate present, because the pledge of my Noble Friend was not limited in time. We feel that in order to carry it out we have to devise some arrangement by which, in future, when the war is over and there is no question of war savings as such, money saved during the war can be identified.
The only other point I wish to make at this stage is in relation to what some hon. Members have sought to show, namely, that we are making a very serious distinction between those who saved during the war and those who happened to save before the war, and that we are trying to make out that those who saved during the war are better citizens than those who saved before the war. Of course, we are not making that distinction at all. While it is quite true that before the war there was a good deal of propaganda for saving, it was propaganda on general social grounds that thrift was a good thing in itself. It extended not only to National Savings Certificates, but to saving groups which existed up and down the country since they were


instituted during the last war. It was part of a good social movement that people should try to save money when earning in order that they should have something to fall back upon in their old age, or something to draw upon on special occasions or for wiser spending at some later date in their lives. But that is not the kind of savings we are dealing with here. The propaganda here is not on the general basis that thrift, as such, is a good thing, although we agree that it is, but that it is highly desirable from the financial point of view that the maximum amount of savings should be made now out of present earnings, and that these savings should be put into the hands of the Government in order that they may have the money to help carry on the war. And the result of the savings campaign has been very remarkable in that direction.
Our other object was that there should be a check on consumption at a time when some of the public may be receiving higher earnings than before. If that is not checked, there is the ever-increasing risk of inflation, and hon. Members opposite, whatever they may have said, will agree with me when I say that. When they cast their minds back to the many Debates we have had in this House, they will remember that they were just as anxious as anyone to see that whatever could be done to check inflation should be done, because they saw the dangers and risks of it. That is why saving in war-time, which is not only highly desirable, takes on a different aspect from the normal thrift propaganda in times of peace. When hon. Members go on to take exception to my interpretation of what is "new money," I would refer again to what was said by my Noble Friend:
It will be necessary in the legislation to make provision to secure that the investment really is of new money and not a transfer of money from previous funds of the same sort. …
[Interruption.] One really must read the sentence to its conclusion, and except for one hon. Member, so far as I know no Member has quoted the rest of the sentence:
since the object of the arrangement is to help to gather in the largest possible amount of additional savings for the war.
That second part of the sentence must be

given equal weight, and additional savings does not mean, and cannot by any stretch of imagination mean, the transfer of pre-war savings into a particular form of holding. If hon. Members will look at it dispassionately—and I know they feel very heated on this subject—they will know that the last thing in the world this Government or any other Government wish to be accused of doing, is the breaking of a solemn pledge. It is really a matter of interpretation.

Mr. A. Bevan: If an ordinary person raises money against collateral in a bank and invests it in war stocks, is that new money or old money?

Captain Crookshank: Prima facie, I should call that old money. There is no merit or advantage from the Government point of view in merely transferring old savings. The point is to try and gather in new savings.

Mr. Mander: On a point of Order. Cannot representations be made to the Chancellor to withdraw the Bill in view of the opinions held on this side of the House? Otherwise, the Debate may go on all night.

Mr. Speaker: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is responsible for the Bill and speaks for the Government.

Mr. Mander: The Financial Secretary is not in a position to take a decision. Only the Chancellor can take a decision with regard to the withdrawal of the Bill.

Hon. Members: Or the Leader of the House.

Captain Crookshank: Whether the Leader of the House wishes to intervene when I have done will be for him to decide, but I hope that hon. Gentlemen will do me the courtesy of listening to the end to what I have to say. If hon. Gentlemen do not agree with the interpretation we have placed on the pledge, the Debate might go on to the end of time. As I have pointed out, my noble Friend in his Budget Speech said:
The statement that I have just made is in line with the advice that I have received from the two sides—(employers and Trades Union Congress); I was fortunate to see both sides—of the National Joint Advisory Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1940; col. 83, Vol. 360.]
I am sure hon. Members will realise we are not in this Bill departing from the understanding reached after full con-


sultation with important people who have been concerned with this matter. I would remind them that the Minister of Labour was one of those who had conversations with the previous Minister of Labour on the subject. Therefore, it is really not a matter of any difference of opinion in the Government as to what was meant by the pledge or as to whether this Bill carries out absolutely what was intended and understood. Not only that, but we go further in the instances which I quoted than anything that could have been read into my noble Friend's statement at the time. I hope that on reflection hon. Gentlemen will try and see the best that there is in other people and will not ascribe to me and the Government any of those base thoughts which seem, unfortunately, to have flowed through their minds this evening.

7.42 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
This is a very complicated subject. A pledge was given. It is not easy to see exactly how that pledge can best be carried out. Although I have not been present during all the Debate, I have not heard any suggestions as to how it can be carried out in view of the difficulties. I think that the House should have time to consider the Debate and to think out the subject as well as the Debate. It is very important that that we should discuss India, and I, therefore, move the Adjournment in order that Members may have further time to consider the whole matter.

Question put, and agreed to; Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. J. P. L. Thomas.]

EMERGENCY POWERS (DEFENCE) ACTS.

POTATOES (1940 CROP) (CHARGES) ORDER.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Potatoes (1940 Crop) (Charges) Order, 1940, dated 3rst July, 1940, made by

the Treasury under Section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 1st August, be approved."—[Mr. Boothby.]

7.44 p.m.

Mr. Quibell: This Order fixes the prices of potatoes for this month, and I want to suggest that they do not make due allowance for the increases in the cost of production. The prices fixed are approximately those that operated a year ago. Since that time the costs of labour and material have considerably increased. Further consideration, therefore, should be given to the matter. I must make a protest that there is not a greater differentiation in the Order between the price for what we call limestone potatoes and the price of white potatoes. The limestone potatoes have for the last 10 years fetched in the open market 20S, to 30s. a ton more than the ordinary white potatoes. The limestone growers have put up with a yield of from six to seven tons an acre, and seven tons is an exceptional crop.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): On a point of Order. I think that my hon. Friend is discussing the wrong Order. The question of prices is not raised in the Order I have moved.

Mr. Quibell: I do not think I am mistaken, for the matter I wish to raise comes under this Order. These levies of 5s. 6d., 6s. and 7s. 6d. go on to the prices of potatoes, and they mean that in many cases something like £3 15s. an acre will go into the Potato Fund. For what is that fund to be used, and when is it to be used? When are the promises that have been made to be met? The huge levies which the grower has to pay must be a charge on either the grower himself or the consumer. They should go into the fund to help the industry, either by taking the surplus potatoes or by using them for manufacturing purposes. The only fair way of dealing with this matter is for the Ministry of Food to take over the whole crop of potatoes. They have encouraged people to grow potatoes, and with so many people growing sufficient for the use of their own families there is little demand for them and there will be a huge surplus. I warned the Government a year ago that the Ministry should use this fund to implement the promises that were made to erect processing factories for dealing with surplus potatoes


and to manufacture them into animal food, which I believe is a mistake, or into potato flour, which I think should be done.
The growers want some definite statement as to what the Ministry propose to do with the crop. One of their difficulties is that they want money. The Ministry of Food should take this crop into their hands and do with it what they have done with other kinds of food. If they took the entire crop over at a reasonable price, they would find money for the farmers which they could use for preparing for next year's crop, and it would prevent any kind of speculation with potatoes. The Parliamentary Secretary wants to dismiss this matter in a word or two, but had we not been held up by the previous Debate he would have had a case to answer. Some of us have spent years in close contact with the growers. We have seen them ruined year after year because of variations in prices, and we now want the Government to fix such a price level as will encourage growers to grow a reasonable amount and to supply the public with its needs. I think it is due to them that they should have some assurance as to price levels, because the price will have to be increased progressively, and should be increased so much per month until next April or May. I hope we shall have some assurance that money taken out of the industry will be put into the manufacturing side of processing, so that when there is a surplus of potatoes we shall be able to use them as food.

7 51 p.m.

Mr. John Morgan: I am sorry to intervene, realising that there is another Debate to follow, but the Minister must be reminded that he is taking the first step in the wrong direction in dealing with a vital food. Can he tell us whether the Ministry have their factories in readiness to deal with that part of the crop which may be a drug on the market this side of Christmas? How many of the factories are ready to be used and where are they? It would be a disaster of the first consequence to agriculture if the potato crop were mishandled this season. If it is we shall not have potatoes next year. It was touch-and-go this time, and if the situation is mishandled we shall be in a muddle over the most vital food crop that the country

can produce. The Minister ought to make it clear, if not now at any rate at an early stage, exactly what he proposes to do with the levy before the farmer puts his potatoes into clamp. Why should he put the surplus crop into clamps? Some hon. Members have their own lawns under potatoes, and that is so in hundreds of thousands of other cases all over the country, and there will not be a firm market for potatoes at the Minister's prices between now and Christmas. He must take that fact into account and tell us when he intends to use these levies and in what form.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I shall not detain the House in view of the important statement which is to follow, but I feel that it would be wrong if those who are so much interested in potatoes as the two hon. Members who have spoken and myself did not press the Parliamentary Secretary for a very early statement indeed of the Government's plans for dealing with the potato crop. The levy which we are invited to approve tonight goes into the Potato Fund, and the time is now ripe for a definite statement on how that money is to be used, how much of it has been used, whether factories have been put up and whether they are yet ready for operation. I understand that the erection of one of them about which I know something has been held up a little through difficulties over building materials, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that fact and speed up its completion. Under another law minimum and maximum prices have been fixed, but, in fact, there is no trade, and I urge that this Potato Fund should be used to enable the Government to come into the market in a big way. Here is the Potato Fund and there are the potatoes, and I ask for an assurance that the Government should come into the market with this Potato Fund within the next few days or weeks; and be a buyer of potatoes on a big scale, so that the farmer may get money for the potatoes which he has grown and be able to get his seed ready for next year.

7.54 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Boothby): I regret that we are not able to have a debate upon this subject, because I recognise that it is one of vital importance, and we


all have to speak under considerable pressure. I would remind hon. Members that this particular Order does not lay down the prices of potatoes. They have been fixed for this year, and we have every reason to believe that with the yield as it is and in view of the assurance that I shall be able to give—and that I believe to be satisfactory—the growers will not do at all badly. Next year's prices have still to be fixed. They are under consideration, but we shall not be able to fix them until we are in a position to form some estimate of the prospective yield. They will not be fixed for some little time to come. The present Order in effect extends the application of the Potatoes (1939 Crop) (Charges) Order, 1940, for another year. That scheme of control is continued practically unchanged. It was designed to give effect to the statement on potato policy made by the Minister of Food in a reply to a Question by the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) on 13th December last. That statement, which I vividly remember, provided for the following measures to be taken: (1) the fixing of minimum and maximum growers' prices for potatoes; (2) the setting up of an insurance fund from the proceeds of a levy to be imposed on the first resales of ware potatoes; and (3) the insurance fund to be used for (a) meeting the cost of the scheme and (b) ensuring growers a reasonable return for any surplus crop remaining at the end of the season. In addition to this the Minister, in replying to me at the time, said:
In the event of a surplus, whether resulting from an expansion of acreage or exceptional yields, the Ministry of Food will make the necessary arrangements for ensuring that growers will be enabled to obtain a remunerative return on their potato crop as a whole.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1939; col. 1208, Vol. 355.]
I certainly stand by that pledge.

Mr. Butcher: Will the hon. Member forgive me? He has missed out the statement about fixing minimum prices. Does he stand for that part of the policy? The phrase runs:
Minimum prices will be fixed on the basis of the new 1939 minimum prices with such adjustments as may be necessary to take account of increased costs of production and in relation to yield."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1939; col. 1208. Vol. 355.]

Mr. Boothby: I should like to say that I do not think the prices for this crop will be poor, and my information is that on the yield anticipated at the moment, and provided the Ministry undertake to purchase the surplus potatoes, growers will not do badly.

Mr. J. Morgan: No, you must give them a firm market as soon as you can.

Mr. Boothby: I agree as to the desirability of getting a firm market, but I am not aware that the market—

Mr. Morgan: It is very dull.

Mr. Boothby: Well, that is seasonal. We have every reason to believe that the market will firm up. I have pointed out that the prices for next season are under consideration, and it may well be that we shall be able in a comparatively short space of time to announce prices for next season's potatoes which will be very satisfactory to the growers. That is my hope. I should like to say that while the Minister's statement related to ware potatoes only it has now been decided, after consultation with the trade interests concerned, to incorporate seed potatoes as well into the present scheme of control.
Let me come to Section (3), which actually prescribes the rates of levy payable. By licensed wholesale potato merchants, 5s. a ton; by retail distributors licensed to buy direct from growers, 7s. 6d. a ton; by licensed seed potato merchants, 2s. 6d. a ton; by licensed grower-salesmen 6s. a ton; and by persons licensed for particular sale transactions, 6s. a ton. I would like hon. Members to be clear on this point, that the levy is taken into account in fixing wholesale and retail prices, and its ultimate incidence does, therefore, fall upon the consumer, on whom its effect works out at about 1/37th of a penny per lb. This levy will be used for the purpose of enabling us to purchase any surplus that there may be, but I want to make it clear to the House and the country that in the event of the amount of money in the insurance fund being insufficient to meet this requirement, the Ministry of Food will still stand by its guarantee and will make arrangements for the purchase and disposal of any surplus potatoes. My hon. Friend knows that that is valuable.

Mr. Quibell: I know all about it.

Mr. Boothby: I was on his side when this question was asked, and I hasten to say that I am on his side now. I think when the end of the year comes he will find that his potato growers, as well as mine, will be very satisfied with what has happened.

Mr. Quibell: No.

Mr. Boothby: Yes, I think so, and I ask my hon. Friend to wait a little time. An hon. Member raised the very important point about the factories which we are setting up, and I should like to give the House a little information about this matter. Six factories are projected. Two are already in production. Three should be ready towards the end of November and the other one will, we hope, be ready by Christmas. We think that they will be of great advantage.

Mr. de Rothschild: Are these new factories?

Mr. Boothby: It depends upon what my hon. Friend means by "new." I will tell the House where they are situated; they are at Wisbech, Skelmersdale, Dundee, Boston, Selby, and, probably, Haddenham.

Mr. de Rothschild: Has not the Wisbech factory been functioning now for nearly three years?

Mr. Boothby: Yes, Sir. I did not say that they were all new. I said that some of them were projected. I am not trying to make excessive claims in regard to these factories but I think that hon. Members will agree that they will be of great assistance in dealing with any surplus potato crop in the future. There is only one change in the Order, in its comparison with the last one, which I ought to point out, and that is in the item relating to potatoes grown by a person whose total holding of agriculural land is less than one acre. That would exclude most gardens and allotments.
All I wish to say in conclusion is about paragraph 5 of the Order, which requires all the proceeds of the levy to be paid into the Potato Fund. It says that these proceeds
shall be applied in the manner and for the purposes mentioned in the Potato (1939 Crop) (Charges) Order, 1940(b).
These are the important words from paragraph 7 of that Order:

After defraying the expenses incurred by the Minister in connection with the scheme of control, it shall be applied in accordance with arrangements approved by the Treasury and the Minister for the benefit of potato growers.
I can therefore give an absolute assurance to the House that the whole of the levy will be applied solely for the benefit of the potato growers. I hope that my hon. Friends will be satisfied with that, and that they will forgive me for making a rather brief statement.

Mr. Quibell: Is the provision in regard to potato flour confined to the making of animal food?

Mr. Boothby: It is not confined to being manufactured into animal food. There is a dual purpose.

Mr. J. Morgan: May I ask for the further assurance that the Ministry intend to deal with the whole crop from the point of view of the consumer, and not leave waste potatoes to be drawn out of the market and to disappear underground?

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Potatoes (1940 Crop) (Charges) Order, 1940, dated 31st July, 1940, made by the Treasury under Section two of the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act, 1939, a copy of which was presented to this House on 1st August, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

INDIA (CONSTITUTION).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Holdsworth.]

8.5 p.m.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I hope that I may claim the indulgence of the House, not only because this is the first time, after a long interval of years, that I speak from this Box, but because of the importance and difficulty of the subject with which I have to deal. To keep one's balance steadily along a knife-edge of ice in the high Alps is a much easier task than threading one's way, without stumbling or offence, through the intricate, pitfall-strewn maze of the present Indian situation. So I trust that before hon. Members enter upon a discussion of the important statement made by the Viceroy


last week, they will bear patiently with me while I endeavour to say something about the background of political controversy and deadlock which led up to that statement. It is only in that way that the full significance and purport of Lord Linlithgow's initiative and the decision of His Majesty's Government in this matter can be rightly understood.
Five years have passed since the passage of the Government of India Act. That Measure was the fruit of a long series of commissions and conferences and many stirring Debates in this House. It was, in itself, a remarkable feat of constructive statesmanship on the part of Parliament and, so far as the Provincial part of the Act is concerned, it presently came into operation and is still being worked successfully in four out of 11 Provinces of India. If it is temporarily suspended in the other Provinces, that fact has not been due to any failure on the part of the Provincial Ministries to carry out the responsibilities entrusted to them, or to any conflict between them and the Provincial Governors or the Central Government; but to purely extraneous causes of which I shall have something to say in a moment. Whether the Federal provisions of the Act might have worked equally well, if they could have been brought into operation promptly is, perhaps, an open question. What is certain is that the delays involved, inevitable as they may have been, have afforded occasion for the development of a volume of adverse criticism and of opposition, in face of which their enforcement could no longer serve the purpose for which they were originally devised. It is essential to keep in mind that this opposition comes from different quarters, and indeed, is based on opposite reasons. The constitutional deadlock in India to-day is not so much between His Majesty's Government and a consentient Indian Opposition, as between the main elements in India's own national life. It can therefore not be resolved by the relatively easy method of bi-lateral agreement between His Majesty's Government and the representatives of India but only by the much more difficult method of multi-lateral agreement, in which His Majesty's Government is only one of the parties concerned.
Let me say a word about this problem. There is, first of all, the Indian National

Congress. Its leaders repudiate the Act of 1935, at any rate in its Federal aspect, as a denial both of India's right to immediate complete independence and of the principles of democracy. It was in pursuance of that repudiation, and because India's consent was not formally invited before she was committed to war that they called out the Congress Ministries in the Provinces. Their demand has been that India's independence should be recognised forthwith, and that Indians should devise their own constitution in a constituent assembly elected by universal adult sufferage over all India, including the Indian States. In the last few weeks they have declared their willingness in the meantime to join in the war effort through a National Government commanding the confidence of the elected members of the Legislative Assembly.
The Congress leaders are men animated and inspired by an ardent national patriotism. They have built up a remarkable political organisation, by far the most efficient political machine in India, of which they are justly proud. They have striven to make that organisation national and all-embracing. If only they had succeeded, if Congress could, in fact, speak, as it professes to speak, for all the main elements in India's national life, then, however advanced their demands, our problem might have been very different, and in many respects far easier, than it is today. It is true that they are numerically much the largest single party in British India. But their claim, in virtue of that fact, to speak for India, is utterly denied by very important elements in India's complex national life. These other elements assert their right to be regarded, not as mere numerical minorities, but as separate constituent factors in any future Indian polity, entitled to be treated as such in any discussions for the shaping of India's future constitution.
Foremost among these elements stands the great Moslem community, 90,000,000 strong, and constituting a majority both in North-Western and North-Eastern India, but scattered as a minority over the whole sub-continent. In religious and social outlook, in historic tradition and culture, the difference between them and their Hindu fellow countrymen goes as deep as, if not deeper than, any similar or corresponding difference in Europe.


That need not and does not preclude pleasant social intercourse or fruitful political co-operation. It has not, in fact, prevented individual Moslems taking an active part in the work of the Congress Party. But as a body the Moslems have stood aloof. Their quarrel with the scheme of the existing Act is not that it fails to give that clear majority rule for which Congress asks, but that, on the contrary, it gives too great powers to a Hindu majority at the Centre. They will have nothing to do with a Constitution framed by a constituent assembly elected by majority vote in geographical constituencies. They claim the right in any constitutional discussions to be regarded as an entity, and are determined only to accept a Constitution whose actual structure will secure their position as an entity against the operations of a mere numerical majority. The same, though in a lesser degree perhaps, applies to the great body of what are known as the Scheduled Castes, who feel, in spite of Mr. Gandhi's earnest efforts on their behalf, that, as a community, they stand outside the main body of the Hindu community which is represented by Congress.
The Indian Princes, again, with territories which cover a third of all India, and which include nearly a quarter of its population, constitute another entity or group of entities which refuses to be assimilated to the simple democratic formula propounded by Congress. They object to the existing scheme as interfering too greatly with their existing powers. They naturally object even more strongly to the proposed Constituent Assembly or any Constitution which might emerge from it. Yet they are an essential element in any Indian Federation. What is more, they can make a most valuable contribution to it. In many ways their territories are the most characteristically Indian part of India. They have equally much to gain from closer contact with the rest of India in constitutional as well as in economic development. But it is idle to suppose that such a development can take place overnight or that it can be forced upon them before they can be allowed to play their part in a federal scheme. It is essential to keep these differences in mind when we talk of finding a solution for India's constitutional problem. They are, at the moment, still unbridged. I refuse

to regard them as unbridgeable. Underlying them, after all, there is the fact that India is a self-contained and distinctive region of the world. There is the fact that India can boast of an ancient civilisation and of a long history common to all her peoples, of which all Indians are equally proud. Is there any Indian who is not proud to be called an Indian? Is there any Indian, of any community, who has not felt a thrill of pride in the thought that he is a fellow countryman of a man like Rabindranath Tagore, who was so uniquely honoured by Oxford University the other day? Underlying them, too, is another unity, a unity not merely of administration, but of political thought and aspiration which we here can justly claim to have contributed to India's national life. India cannot be unitary in the sense that we, in this island, are unitary, but she can still be a unity. India's future house of freedom has room for many mansions.
In no respect has the essential unity of India's outlook been shown more clearly than in the attitude which all parties and communities have from the outset of this war taken up in their detestation of Nazi aggression and in their endorsement of our common cause. The greater our difficulties, the graver the disasters that befel the Allied arms, the clearer has been the realisation in the minds of the Indian public that our cause is India's cause, the stronger the wave of sympathetic emotion for this country in its single-handed fight, the more widespread has been the feeling that a purely political deadlock, affecting the issues of to-day and to-morrow, ought not to be allowed to stand in the way of India's contributing a united and whole-hearted effort to the cause upon whose victory depends the preservation of all her ideals and the fulfilment of all her aspirations. It is in this atmosphere that the Viceroy felt that the moment had come for an initiative which should at the same time enlist all the elements of political leadership in India behind her war effort, and also make, at any rate, a beginning in breaking down the existing political deadlock, and so pave the way towards the early achievement of that goal of free and equal partnership in the British Commonwealth which, to quote the eloquent closing words of his statement, is
the proclaimed and accepted goal of the Imperial Crown and of the British Parliament.


The immediate offer contained in the Viceroy's statement is that of an expansion of his Executive Council as Governor-General, so as to include in it leading members of all the main political parties, as well as the establishment of a wider War Advisory Council on an all-India basis, associating with the conduct of the war representatives of the Indian States and of other interests in the national life of India as a whole. The enlarged Executive Council will, of course, under the existing Constitution, still be responsible to the Governor-General, and cannot be responsible in the strict constitutional sense to the Legislature. The Congress have asked that a provisional National Government should be set up at the Centre, which, though formed as a transitory measure, should be such as to command the confidence of all the elected elements in the Central Legislature. In inviting a certain number of representative Indians to join this Council, the Viceroy will naturally take appropriate steps to ensure that the new members do in fact represent the opinion of the parties from which they are chosen. If, however, the Congress claim is that the members of the Viceroy's Council should be dependent on the support of the elected members of the Legislature, it is, in fact, a demand for changing the whole basis of the Government of India in the middle of the war. More than that, if the House has followed the analysis which I have attempted to give of the attitude of the different elements in India to the constitutional problem, it will realise that it is a demand which raises the whole unresolved constitutional issue and prejudges it in the sense favoured by Congress and rejected by the minorities. There can be no agreement on a Government responsible to the Legislature until there is agreement on the nature of the Legislature, and upon the whole structure of the Constitution.
The Congress demand, therefore, in present circumstances is not a practical demand. The Viceroy's offer, on the other hand, does present to Indian leaders the opportunity of taking an immediate, effective and important part in the government of India and of bringing their influence to bear on the conduct of the war without prejudice to their several political positions. They will commit themselves to nothing, except to working together in the present emergency for the

safety and good of India and for the common cause in which they all believe. I still hope that they will all be willing to take their part, in spite of the discouraging attitude shown in Congress quarters. If it should, unfortunately, not prove to be the case, Lord Linlithgow will, of course, still go ahead, prepared to work with those who will work with him and with each other.
The Viceroy's immediate offer, however, does not stand by itself. His initiative has been concerned, as I said just now, not only with India's fuller participation in the actual present war effort, but also with paving the way towards the speedier attainment of the goal at which we are aiming. May I say a word about that goal—Dominion status, as it is commonly described, or, as I prefer to describe it, free and equal partnership in the British Commonwealth? It is not, as is so often suggested when Dominion status is contrasted with full independence, an inferior or dependent status. The status of a Dominion—or of this country, for that matter, for our status in the Commonwealth, although not, perhaps, our stature, is the same as theirs—is one not inferior to that of nations that perforce stand alone, but superior. How many so-called independent nations are really free to live their own lives as they will, even when they are not directly overrun or dismembered by more powerful neighbours? We of the British Commonwealth enjoy something more. We enjoy the security, the prosperity, the friendship, the enhanced dignity in the eyes of the world, which come to each of us as the result of our free and equal association. There is no higher status in the world than that. That is the status which we have declared to be the goal of our policy in India.
Our declarations, however, have apparently still left in certain quarters doubts as to the sincerity of our purpose, and have raised, not unnaturally, the question both of the time when and the method by which we mean to fulfil them. It is to that question that the Viceroy, with the full approval of His Majesty's Government, has now given an answer, which marks, I think, a notable step forward on the path to the accepted goal. May I quote here the most significant passage in the Viceroy's statement?


There has been very strong insistence that the framing of that scheme"—
that is, the new constitutional scheme for India—
should be primarily the responsibility of Indians themselves, and should originate from Indian conceptions of the social, economic and political structure of Indian life. His Majesty's Government are in sympathy with that desire, and wish to see it given the fullest practical expression, subject to the due fulfilment of the obligations which Great Britain's long connection with India has imposed on her and for which His Majesty's Government cannot divest themselves of responsibility.
The recognition of these obligations is not an impairment of status, but only a recognition of facts, historic or geographical, which differentiate the present position of India from that of other Dominions. As the late Lord Balfour pointed out in his remarkable exposition of the nature of British Commonwealth relations, in the constitutional report of the Imperial Conference of 1926:
The principles of equality and similarity appropriate to status do not universally extend to function,
and he instanced, in particular, the functions of defence and foreign policy. It is in respect of these, for example, that the position of India, both in virtue of her historic military organisation and of her geographical position, differs from that of the Dominions. But the difference that arises from these and similar obligations is one of degree, and not of kind. For in the case of every Dominion there has always been some measure of adjustment, formal or informal, to British obligations. Subject to these matters, the desire of His Majesty's Government is that the new Constitution of India should be devised by Indians for themselves, and should—may I quote the words again?—
originate from Indian conceptions of the social, economic, and political structure of Indian life.
That task is to be undertaken with the least possible delay after the war by
a body representative of the principal elements in India's national life.
That means a body constituted in agreement between the representatives of these elements. It does not mean a body set up on lines which may commend themselves to one particular element, however influential, but wholly unacceptable to the minority elements. His Majesty's Government have made it clear that they

could not contemplate the transfer of their present responsibilities for the peace and welfare of India to any system of government whose authority is directly denied by large and powerful elements in India's national life. In this matter too, there is no departure from the principles which have governed the coming into existence of every Dominion Constitution. In every case in the Dominions there has been antecedent agreement, not only between the geographical units, but also between the main racial elements—English and French in Canada, Britain and Boer in South Africa—both as to the method of framing the Constitution and as to the Constitution itself. Agreement, consent, is, indeed, the foundation of all free government, of all true democracy. Decision by majority is not so much of the essence of democracy as a practical convenience, which presupposes for its proper working an antecedent general consent to the Constitution itself. It has, indeed, in most federal Constitutions been limited in various ways in order to safeguard the separate interests of the federating elements. To describe the need for such agreement as a veto on constitutional progress is, I think, to do an injustice to the patriotism and sense of responsibility of those concerned. Agreement means not veto by any element, but compromise. And willingness to compromise, in India as elsewhere, is an essential test of that sense of responsibility on which free government must be based.
On the other hand, within the limitations imposed by the necessity of securing agreement, the whole constitutional field is open to re-examination. It may, indeed, prove to be the case that it is by entirely novel departures from the existing scheme, whether in the relation of the Centre to the Provinces or to the States, or in the methods of election and representation, that an agreement can be reached which is unattainable within the framework of the existing Act, based as it is on the traditions of India's administrative past and on our customary British constitutional conceptions.
So much for the question of method. There is the question, no less insistently asked, as to the date. Here the answer given by the statement is also clear. The decisive resolution of these great constitutional issues, the actual setting up of a new system of government, cannot come at the moment when we are all engaged


in a desperate struggle for existence. How soon it can come after the war is essentially in India's own hands. The experience of every Dominion has shown that these fundamental issues are not lightly or speedily settled. What I have told the House of the complexity and difficulty of India's peculiar problems does not suggest that her experience in this respect will be essentially different from that of others. There is always an immense amount of preliminary discussion, inquiry and negotiation which has to be got through before the real decisive meetings take place. There is absolutely no reason why any of this indispensable preliminary work should wait for the end of the war. The more completely and thoroughly it is done now, the wider the agreement reached now as to the form of the post-war representative body, as to the methods and procedure by which we should arrive at its conclusions, and as to the principles and outlines of the Constitution itself, the more speedily can everything be settled after the war is over. So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, they have offered to welcome and promote in any way possible such preliminary friendly discussion and investigation and have equally promised to lend every aid in their power to hasten decisions on all relevant matters when it comes to the subsequent task of finally settling the Constitution. They can do no more. The responsibility for securing a speedy as well as a satisfactory result rests upon Indians themselves.
I submit that the Viceroy's initiative represents a sincere effort on our part to make such contribution as we can towards the smooth and speedy attainment of the desired goal. Others must also make their contribution. No one element or party can hope to get all that it wants, or at least to get all at once. If we agree upon the end, let us all work for it with sympathy, understanding, patience, good will towards each other. That, at any rate, is the spirit in which His Majesty's Government are resolved to persevere in the carrying out of the policy which they have now defined. So far as we in this country are concerned, we have every reason to be proud of what we have contributed in the past to the history and to the life of India. But I, at any rate, believe with Lord Macaulay that the proudest day of our history will be the

day when we see India joining, a free and willing partner, in the brotherhood of the British peoples. As for India, she will give, I know, her effective answer to tyranny and aggression in the field of war. But she can give an even more conclusive answer in the field of constructive statesmanship. In a world threatened by all the evil forces of hatred and destruction, of partisan and racial intolerance, there could be no more hopeful portent, no more assured omen of the ultimate victory of our cause, than that the leaders of India's millions should in peaceful agreement resolve not only their own perplexing discords, but also afford yet one further example within our British Commonwealth of the power of good will to reconcile freedom and unity, and through our Commonwealth to bridge the age-long gulf between Europe and Asia. Then, indeed, could we say with justice that the dawn of a better day for the world was heralded in the East.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I would like to begin by offering my respectful congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on his return to that Box and on the very able and helpful speech he has delivered at a time when it is most needed. It is somewhat of a coincidence that, once before, when I spoke at the Table I was on that side and he was on this and I have recollections of the kindly help I received from him when I was being sniped at from other quarters of the House on account of what was known as the question of the five cruisers. May I say, too, that many of us here regret this evening the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton (Mr. Wedgwood Benn), who, in October last, made a memorable contribution to a Debate on India and did a great deal of work while he filled the office of Secretary of State for India.
The right hon. Gentleman has just said, quite truly, that the gap between this country and India is not unbridgeable and that statesmanship and patience may do very much to bring us within measurable distance of complete understanding and of a greater harmony than has been known for a very long time. I shall not, however, follow the lines which the right hon. Gentleman took. I propose to confine myself to the White Paper and


what arises therefrom. Nothing is to be gained by recrimination and by raking up past differences which we may have had over the Congress Party. We must all recognise the sincerity and patriotism of the Congress Party who have, from their point of view, built up a powerful political party in India and have done much to keep the position of their people before this country and the world. It would be asking too much of human nature to expect that the Congress Party should not endeavour to get as good terms for themselves as they can if they give their full weight to aid us in the present crisis. While it is true that we are responsible for self-government, and to seeing that it is applied so as to ensure a stable and peaceful government, I think the statement issued last week in the name of the Governor-General of India takes us a very considerable step in that desirable direction. It is an invitation to the people of India to co-operate with us in this time of crisis and help us to see it through, so that, later, we may be able to build up a better understanding and a system of government that will be acceptable both to the Indian people and ourselves.
The right hon. Gentleman, I am glad to say, has gone a good deal further than I expected and in some measure has answered some of the questions I intended to put to him. I am sure he means it to be understood that in appointing Indians to the Executive Council and to India's War Cabinet which will supervise the conduct of the war, they are not being invited to help only in an advisory capacity but as real partners and as people who are to be considered on an equality with the rest of those who sit in the Council chamber. I India is to lend a hand and accept her share of responsibility in our struggle, she would do well to seize this present opportunity and exploit it to the full, because if the door is partly open, it is for India to push it open still more widely. India has the right to ask that the number of representative Indians shall be sufficiently large to ensure that Indian opinion will be heard with effect and give their people confidence. She has a right to ask that she will be welcome, not as a poor relation but as an honoured member of the family circle acting in a real executive position and not merely in an

advisory capacity, recognising, however, that there are certain limitations which go with co-operation and that we have all an equal right to be heard and considered. That recognition must be given without equivocation. As regards her claim to independence, I would rather use the word "inter-dependence." We have too many independent States just now, causing a good deal of trouble in the world. Interdependence is the term we use when we talk about the British Commonwealth, in which we realise each and all that we have a common object and that we are all partners on equal terms, no one claiming a superior position over the other.
As far as India is concerned however, we have to face difficulties and problems which do not present themselves in our relationship with other Dominions. The first thing we have to realise is that the rights of minorities cannot be lightly swept aside. Consideration must be given to the views of 90,000,000 Mohamedans, the States of the ruling Princes and the depressed classes in India. On the other hand, it is only fair to point out that the minorities cannot definitely hold in check the legitimate aspirations of the majority. Therefore, the peace and well-being of India cannot be brought about simply by the application of coercive measures. It is true that the announcement of the Governor-General leaves the door open for the possibility of composing the differences between the opposing sections. Here is an opportunity for all to come in, and co-operate on grounds of equal status and see how far it is possible for Indians, devoted to their own country, to find common ground on which they can meet and pool their resources in order to give new life, hope and vision to their own country. How effective that co-operation can be made, rests entirely with the Indians themselves. The Congress Party especially, if they will use it, have an opportunity that may not occur again.
I speak particularly for my own immediate friends in this House who have a special feeling for India. If the Congress Party will act in the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, they can then go forward to a wider and larger experience of co-operation. Other Dominions have come into the Commonwealth after consultation with their people, but in their case the problems


were not so great as they are here. In Canada and Australia there was a more or less homogeneous population, but in India there are many conflicting opinions and problems which, somehow or other, seem calculated to arouse the worst passions and sentiments of mankind—linguistic, racial and religious problems. For, by the irony of fate, no greater troubles are caused than those connected with religious questions, just as you can never raise a bigger row than by the mention of the word "peace."
I think, perhaps, it would be helpful if His Majesty's Government would make it clear at the outset that representation on the post-war body is not to be merely nominal, but such as will give full weight to Indian opinion, and that decisions arrived at by the representative body will not be overridden by the British Parliament. By that time India will have gone through the whole preparatory process, because it is as well to remember, as the right hon. Gentleman has already said, that it is not necessary to wait until the end of the war before we can begin exploring and trying out the ground for future discussion and agreement after the war. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton mentioned that in his speech in this House in October last, when he pointed out that legislation and preparation are two different things. There is nothing to prevent us getting on with the preparatory work, even though we are at war, and, as he said:
It is necessary to review the facts, to make contacts, to establish accords if the final conference is to he a success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th October, 1939; col. 1630, Vol. 352.]
That was supported by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) who then spoke for the Government and said that it might be well before the end of the war that constitutional discussion of some kind should take place. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman opposite does not in any way dissent from that, but regards it as a reasonable course of action. I am aware that some soreness exists in India because they feel that they were placed in an entirely different position from the rest of the British Commonwealth when they were not consulted, as were the other Dominions, at the beginning of the war. That was, admittedly, a mistake, but I do

suggest to our friends in India that this offer goes a long way to make good that omission, and there is no object to be served, either for the good of India or the good of civilisation, by using language that is likely to exacerbate old grievances, instead of recognising the common object and the common foe that we are up against to-day.
There is one unmistakable fact which stands out clear and unchallengeable, and must be taken into account by every responsible body in India, namely, that should Britain not emerge fully successful from this struggle, then all hope of India's freedom goes, and the Congress Party and every other body in India will disappear from any active participation in the life of that country. And is it unfair to point out that the struggle in which we are now engaged, almost alone, is India's struggle as much as ours, and that our soldiers and sailors and our gallant airmen are bearing the full brunt and weight of India's struggle? We have a perfect right to ask that India shall share the responsibility and wholeheartedly accept the offer that is now made to her; then, after the experience of comradeship and friendship in arms we may carry our relationship forward yet another step in order to enter into full and equal partnership. And let there be no mistake or misunderstanding as to the meaning of the words "Dominion status." How can it be anything short of what we really understand is the right meaning of the word "independence"? Would anybody venture to tell Canadians and Australians and South Africans they were not fully independent? Yet they accept the position of partners, and consultation and discussion take place, not on the lines that "I stand alone for my position and my point of view," but in order to get the best common measure of agreement for the whole body of the Commonwealth. Mr. Gandhi has well said that:
We do not seek our independence out of Britain's ruin.
It would be well to ask our friends in India to recognise that, and to remember that there can be no independence for India along such lines.
We join with the right hon. Gentleman in asking India in the name of those who have shown through many years, real friendship and a real desire to help forward India's cause not to lose this opportunity. On the other hand, I hope we


shall get from the right hon. Gentleman the assurances I have asked for, namely, that Indians shall come in, not as mere advisers, but as members of the Executive whose word shall carry as much weight and authority as that of others, and who sit down not as poor relations but as members of the family itself. So I conclude by saying that, while we in this country are engaged in a life and death struggle to maintain liberty of thought, speech, and opinion, and the right to worship as we will here in the West, we send out a call to our brethren in India to unite in a like crusade in the East so that, from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, freedom shall stand.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the very important statement that he has made. I do so, not because of the historical review which he set before us with such conciseness and ability but because I believe that there was ringing through his speech the best answer that could possibly be given to those elements of suspicion which he says are still lurking in some quarters in India. There were three things in the statement which seemed to me to be of great importance. One was the statement that he refused to regard those deep-seated differences of outlook and tradition between the Hindu and the Moslem community as unbridgeable. There ought to be no question of last words in this controversy, either from the English or the Indian side. If we are to take up an intransigent attitude of that kind, it may well be that the opportunity of a peace which will enable us to bring our ideals to fruition, will completely pass away.
I think the right hon. Gentleman took us somewhat further to-night than the statement of the Viceroy. I am particularly grateful to him for having given us a new definition of our aims and policy, in regard to India. We have always spoken of Dominion status. He has, in a simpler and a happy phrase, said that what we wish for India is the same kind of freedom that we enjoy for ourselves. I do not know that we can aim at anything higher than that. I do not know that we have anything higher, in which to offer to co-operate with India than

that. If there is still suspicion of us in India, and of the bona fides of the offer which is now being made, our record in the matter of freedom, though we have made mistakes, and no doubt shall make them again, is not a bad one. It is the finest and highest record in regard to freedom which human history can show. Who in 1900 or 1901 would have said that within two years South Africa of her own free will would stand, a united nation, with us in two great wars? This question is of the greatest possible consequence even in the present conflict, because India's cause and India's battle is ours. It is the cause of world freedom, neither more nor less, and we recognise with gratitude that India has made, and is continuing to make, a great contribution to our war effort. It is of the greatest possible consequence when we consider the strategical position of our Forces in the Near East. My belief is that, if a final settlement of the terms of a Constitution for India cannot be made in war time, a practical task for every element in India and in this country is to devise a working agreement by which we may work together for our common cause. I believe that is furnished by the right hon. Gentleman's statement to-night. I believe there lies before Congress in the first instance, and perhaps in a somewhat lesser degree before the Moslem community, a great opportunity for the cause of world peace.
There is an analogy in my mind which I hope it is not far-fetched or without significance. I think there is a certain resemblance here to the political and constitutional conflict which was raging from one end of this country to the other at the outbreak of the war in 1914. At that time women were demanding political liberty in no uncertain voice. The campaign was widespread and was voiced with the greatest vehemence. It was being conducted, too, with a degree of violence which would have shocked the apostles of non-co-operation in India. The leaders of the movement realised that the cause of freedom was in jeopardy and they turned to and devoted themselves to making that freedom secure, and, by so doing, did the best possible service they could have done to their own cause. Some of them were very violent people—Mrs. Pankhurst and Lady Millicent Fawcett—but they all took the same view.


Lady Millicent Fawcett said, "We have buried our bone but we know where to find it." I do not think they ever had occasion to look for it, because their service was of such a nature that at the end of the war women's freedom was won, and no one has ever regretted it. I do not know whether the House thinks that I am drawing a far-fetched comparison but I believe that if Congress, the Moslem community and the other communities buried their bone, they would not have occasion to look for it again and brandish it in the face of the world. I think there is a great opportunity lying before them.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to a matter in which, undoubtedly, there has been some suspicion in India. That is about the date and the progress towards the issue of our policy. He said there was no reason why preparation for the scheme for a Constitution and consideration of the machinery by which it is to be brought about, should wait until the end of the war. I see no reason why those eminent and representative Indians who are to be called together on the Executive Government and on the Advisory Council should not comprise some of the people who would also be charged with the development of constitutional affairs. I associate myself with the request for some definition of the functions which will be fulfilled by those who are to be brought into the new Executive Council. The House will be entitled to assume that they will not all be Ministers without Portfolios. That is a matter of very great importance. These are matters which can be discussed, if political elements in India are prepared to consider this proposition from a practical point of view. If there are any still suspicious, if there are those who still doubt the bona fides of this country in carrying out its avowed purpose, let them put it to the test. Let them take all that is offered now. Let them take up the offer which is made to them, and work it to the utmost limit. It is no good saying, as Mr. Gandhi, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, is reported to have said this morning:
The Secretary of State's statement soothes the ear, but does not dispel suspicion.
If there are those who are suspicious, let them test the sincerity of those of whom

they are suspicious by taking them at their word and seeing how far they can go. Mr. Gandhi is alleged to have said:
Britain cannot claim to stand for justice if she fails to be just to India.
Is there anybody who does not agree with that statement? We are pledged, and we are fighting now with our backs to the wall for justice. Nobody with any intelligence believes that we are fighting an Imperialist war. Mr. Gandhi went on to say:
India's disease is too deep to yield to any make-believe or half-hearted measures.
I agree. But it is something more than suspicion that is required. At a great moment in India's history such as this, the Congress policy, in its practical aspect, is, I understand, to do nothing wilfully to embarrass Britain. It would be a fatal mistake at the present juncture of affairs in India for Hindus, Moslems, the scheduled classes, or anybody else, to let their policy halt at that stage. There is a great opportunity before Britain and India at the present time. Let us grasp it and go forward.

9.12 p.m.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has certainly inaugurated his tenure of office by a very eloquent speech which I think very greatly impressed hon. Members in all parts of the House. He comes to the office of Secretary of State for India as one of the greatest experts in this country on all matters connected with the structure of the British Empire and all the component Dominions of that Empire. Political changes are swift in these modern days, but if it should happen that my right hon. Friend is still Secretary of State for India at the time when India eventually becomes one of the Dominions of the Empire, it will be a very remarkable achievement and the crowning success of his great career within the sphere of British Imperial politics.
My right hon. Friend said—and I think said truly—that the Viceroy's statement constitutes a definite advance on what has previously been said on the Indian constitutional issue, and I am glad that he started his statement by re-emphasising the pledge of granting Dominion status. There was a time not very long ago when it would not have been at all accepted as axiomatic in this


House that Dominion status was the eventual goal of Indian constitutional development, but I think that to-day there is very little criticism in this House of that standpoint. There has been a tendency recently, and certainly on one or two occasions last Autumn, for people in India to talk about Dominion status of the Statute of Westminster variety, and they seem to think that is the only kind of Dominion status worth having. As far as I know, there is only one kind of Dominion status in the British Empire, and that is what my right hon. Friend so well defined as free and equal partnership within the British Commonwealth. That is the kind of Dominion status which is now fairly universally recognised as being what India will eventually achieve within the Empire.
There are one or two matters on which I would like to put questions to the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. G. White) have already dealt with one point which I should like to emphasise, and that is with regard to the proposal to take certain Indians into the Viceroy's Executive Council. How many new members of the Executive Council is it proposed that there should be, and, emphasising what the hon. Member for East Birkenhead asked, are they to have definite portfolios in the Viceroy's Council, or are they merely to be extra members of the Council? How far, before the Viceroy's proposals were made, was it ascertained that prominent Indians will agree to accept posts in the Viceroy's Executive Council? I presume that soundings must have been taken. I am afraid my right hon. Friend is right in thinking that there may not be much prospect of Mr. Gandhi or any of the Congress representatives coming in, but I hope he has a reasonable foreknowledge that a certain number of prominent Indians representing other sections of opinion will be willing to take part.
I should like also to ask a question about the new War Advisory Council. My right hon. Friend did not say very much about that. What are its functions to be? How many members are to compose it? Are they to be drawn geographically from all the Provinces of India, or are they, like the new members of the Executive Council, to be

chosen on political grounds? Is this new Council to consist of British members as well as Indian members? The new members of the Viceroy's Executive Council are to be Indians. That is quite clear. In regard to the War Advisory Council, the Viceroy merely said that he has been authorised to establish a War Advisory Council to meet at regular intervals and to take representatives of the Indian States and other representatives of the national life of India. Will they, therefore, be British as well as Indian? I shall await with interest what my right hon. Friend may have to say on that point, because I think the proposal for the War Advisory Council is one which requires rather more explanation than my right hon. Friend has given to the House.
Turning again to the body of the Viceroy's statement, I am glad that he has re-emphasised the question of the minorities. After all, it is one of the great problems in India, this existence of the vast Moslem minority and other minorities, and the more often we in this House and the representatives in India of His Majesty's Government can lay stress upon the fact that you cannot fail adequately to consider the minority problem, the better. I am glad, therefore, that the minority question has again been emphasised in the Viceroy's statement. After all, we in this House under the British Constitution are accustomed to our system of party government by the majority party, and that form of government—our conception of democracy—has been evolved over centuries of time in this country. It is the kind of democratic government which undoubtedly best suits the British character, the British people and British representative institutions, but whether government by party majority is the best form in which democracy should be expressed in an Eastern country such as India is another matter. It may be that the conception of democracy in India, when a future Constitution has been drawn up and is functioning, may not necessarily be government by the majority party, but may be some form of government by a combination of majority and minority, which we in this country cannot ourselves visualise as a good form of democratic government, but which may quite possibly be the eventual


solution of this minority difficulty in India.
My right hon. Friend, very naturally, laid special emphasis in his speech on that part of the Viceroy's statement which deals with what is to take place, after the end of this war, towards shaping the future Constitution of India, and as the Viceroy said in his statement, it has long been insisted in India that the framing of the future scheme should be primarily the responsibility of Indians themselves. And that principle, as my right hon. Friend very clearly brought out, has now been accepted by His Majesty's Government. That, I think, is a tremendously important advance. It does definitely go further than any other past declaration of the British Government in this Indian constitutional problem. The few months I spent in the India Office, during last year and at the beginning of this year, convinced me that sooner or later it would be inevitable that the details of the future Indian Constitution would have to be settled by Indians themselves. Up to now that standpoint has never been definitely accepted by His Majesty's Government, and now for the first time the Viceroy, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, definitely lays it down that it will be the policy that the details of the future Constitution shall be settled by Indians themselves. But when we come to consider how this is to be done it is a very different matter.
It is very easy to say that the future Constitution shall be settled by Indians, but how you are to do it is difficult to visualise at the present time. We know that the Congress Party have for long demanded the setting up of a Constituent Assembly elected by a majority, and that, of course, has never been approved by the Moslems or the representatives of Indian States or the other minorities. But what kind of body exactly this future body is to be, I find it very difficult to see. How will its decisions be reached? Will it decide by a majority? I suppose it is to be composed of all the different sections in India, including the Indian States. When we remember present acute differences which exist in India between the different political parties, it will certainly be a very remarkable achievement if, when the time comes after the war, it is found that this Constitution-making Assembly or body will be at all easy to form.
As my right hon. Friend made it quite clear, when His Majesty's Government said that the future details of the Constitution are to be settled by Indians themselves, that is quite rightly and very properly subject to the qualification that there are certain matters with regard to which His Majesty's Government must themselves have the final decision. Defence and external relations are the two main points which must be outside and beyond the competence of the Indian body to deal with, and there may be other matters, such as the Indian States. I suppose, if the Indian States' representatives take part in the discussions, there can be no agreement without their consent, but if that should not be exactly what happens, it is quite clear that one of the greatest responsibilities which the British Government have in India is their responsibility to the Indian States which have contributed so much to the structure of India, and, indeed, towards helping the British Empire in its times of difficulty. In the meantime, I do not know whether my right hon. Friend could indicate whether or not there is any prospect of the Provincial Governments being reconstituted, whether there has been any advance in that direction, or whether we must continue to face a condition of affairs in which so many of the Provinces are being governed by their Governors without any legislative responsibility.
There was a time not many months ago when it looked as if, when this country was faced with a great crisis in the war, India might take advantage of that crisis and start a campaign of civil disobedience and of the creation of difficulties for this country in her administration of India. I am glad that that is not what has happened. The civil disobedience campaign which was threatened by Mr. Gandhi and others more extreme than he, is apparently called off by the statesmanlike action of Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Nehru and other leaders of Congress. To that extent I think it is only right that there should be some word here of appreciation of their action in having refrained from embarking on a campaign of civil disobedience. I say that with perhaps special emphasis since on the last occasion when I spoke on India in this House it fell to me to announce, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that, if there were a


campaign of civil disobedience in India, the Government of India, backed by His Majesty's Government, would have to deal with it with every force which they could command. Therefore, I am extremely glad to know that up to now civil disobedience has not materialised, and I hope that it never will.
When the National Government was formed a few months ago there were people in India who thought that a Government under the leadership of the present Prime Minister was bound to be a reactionary Government with regard to Indian affairs. We all know of the views which the Prime Minister held at the time of the Act of 1935, when he took a very strong line in opposition to that Measure. But times change, and views change with them. Whether the Prime Minister himself has altered his views on India or not, I do not know, and very few people do know, but, at any rate, it is quite clear from the speech of my right hon. Friend and from the Viceroy's statement that the views of His Majesty's Government as a whole, far from having become more diehard, have certainly become more emphasised in the direction of further constitutional advance in India. I think that the Viceroy's statement and the very eloquent speech of the Secretary of State do undoubtedly indicate a definite advance along the road of Indian constitutional development towards the goal of Dominion status within the Empire, the fulfilment of which depends more upon co-operation and agreement among Indians themselves than upon any other conceivable happening in Indian affairs.

9.36 p.m.

Sir Frederick Sykes: May I, as one who has been concerned with Indian administration, ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments to make a few brief re-marks in this discussion? It is now nearly seven years since I left India, but my interest in Indian affairs, in which I was engaged five years, has never dimmed, and if I cannot speak from entirely fresh experience, I can at least claim a background of experience as a setting to my subsequent study of Indian developments. I should like at the outset to congratulate the Government, and particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, on the statement they have authorised the Viceroy to make, and also the Secretary of State upon the

extraordinarily clear statement he has made to us this evening May I interject one other small note? It is that as I rise for the first time since my return to this House I may perhaps be permitted to add that I bring with me the eager and wholehearted support of the electors of Central Nottingham for the Government's war policy and war measures. I am indeed proud to be re-enlisted as a Member of this House.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has said for us all that our policy is to wage war, but I submit that the waging of war does not exclude service to the cause for which we took up arms. It is for that reason that I welcome so cordially this expression of intentions for the constitutional future of India. I think it is a proof of our steadfast faith with India, which cannot be more plainly brought out than by this statement which has just been made and issued at a time when we are encompassed with great anxiety and danger. In India the response to the Viceroy's offer, as I have read, has not been entirely whole-hearted, but I submit that criticism, where it has been expressed, is more concerned with the terms of the offer than with the spirit which informs it. There has, I think, been a wide recognition of the deep sincerity and value of the Viceroy's appeal for unity in India; unity as the essential condition of India's welfare and development, and as the urgent need to enable her to take her full share in the struggle for the preservation of those ideals upon which her future, like our own, depends.
The statement obviously makes a tremendous advance over the Act of 1935, which was framed, as we all know, however sympathetically and conscientiously, by the Imperial Parliament. We still retained the right to define and regulate India's constitutional advance; but now, to-day, we propose that the framing of a Constitution for India should be, to the fullest practical extent, the responsibility of the Indians themselves. As an earnest of our sincerity, we invite representative Indians to join with us on the Executive Council of the Governor-General, and to serve as equal Members, I understand, on a War Advisory Council, representative of both British India and the Indian Princes.
One reservation we are bound to make. It is that we cannot surrender our respon-


sibility to ensure that the future Constitution adequately safeguards the position of the various minorities and the elements which constitute the Indian whole; but I do not think that this is a limitation upon Indian unity. It is rather, surely, its pre-condition. To live and let live is the governing principle of any democratic-working Constitution, and its importance, I feel, grows in proportion to the diversity of races, faiths and traditions that make the mosaic of the community. I want to plead, therefore, that we, in this House and in the country, should be strong and united in this belief, and that we should be clear, and persuaded, to whatever party we belong, that our trust for the welfare of the Indian peoples, as well as our devotion to the ideals of freedom and fair dealing, determine us to stand by this condition. Without it, we should, I feel, betray all for which we stand and have stood in India.
By our unanimity we shall help to convince all sections of Indian opinion that this stand is based upon sincere principle, that it is directed to the advance and progress of India herself, and that it is by no means a convenient cloak under the cover of which we are conspiring to deprive India of self-government. As we all know, too often the echoes of controversy in this country reverberate in the Indian Press, and encourage the Indian political opposition to doubt the genuineness of our intention. Let us adopt, therefore, this statement of policy which has been made to-day, and support consistently the spirit of its practical proposals. By so doing, I believe absolutely that we shall best be serving India's own interests.
We all know that the war has quickened the desire for unity among Indians themselves. The tremendous and brutal threat of Nazi aggression, with its philosophy of universal subjection and exploitation, has distracted Indian opinion. I think there is no doubt that the war has compelled Indians to take a wider outlook, to consider the position of India in the world rather than the position of India alone, and to reassess the advantages of India's membership of the British Commonwealth. I think to-day most Indians realise that the future of India and the preservation of her ancient culture depend no longer upon bargains or bitter opposition to the British Raj,

but that the destinies of India are being shaped by the course of the life-and-death struggle in which we are all involved. As the Viceroy said, India has already made a mighty contribution to the common cause and is anxious to make still greater contributions. She may ask how. The answer is, I feel, by resolutely seeking to promote her national unity within the British Commonwealth. It is India's duty to herself to realise this truth, and it is her duty and common sense to play the fullest part she can in the general struggle. There is surely no longer any possible doubt that India is not being dragged into this struggle but that she is there of her own volition in order to safeguard her own freedom. First, then, she must come in for her own self-preservation.
May I first emphasise the reality and urgency of the present threat to India? The war, as we all know, has now spread to the Middle East. It is true that the battle of Egypt has not yet begun, but Italian forces are driving against our troops in British Somaliland in an effort to reach Berbera. Why? Because if we should be driven out of Somaliland, the Italians would control the western coast of the Red Sea, south of Port Sudan, and would be able to menace directly Aden and Arabia. If Aden, the backdoor to the Mediterranean, were bolted before the Battle of Egypt began, India, Australasia and the Far East would be cut off from our strategical centre in the Middle East. Lack of passage for reinforcements and materials would affect the course of the Battle of Egypt, and if the enemy should get a foothold in Palestine and immobilise Syria, the threat to India would become immediate, and help for her could only be slow and difficult. I think it is a truism to say that the frontiers of India are now on the Suez Canal. Therefore, the time and the need are now. I feel that we should send a clear message to India that we need her help as she needs ours. The safety of India and of the British Commonwealth are inseparable, and we are equal partners in trying to break down the menace to the British Empire throughout the world. To help herself, India must help the common cause with the whole of her strength. To do this, she must strive to unite her peoples and put aside the differences which there have been in the past and which have blocked her political progress.


By doing so now, she will not only make herself capable of exerting her maximum power, but she will also prepare herself for the day when Indians, in friendship with each other and with a single purpose, will assume the responsibilities of full self-government as a willing partner with the nations of a victorious British Commonwealth. I feel, too, that if our message from this House is strong and clear, it will be for India to choose her path. I believe also that in choosing that path she will choose the right way, that leads towards her safety and her welfare.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Sorensen: I am quite sure that every Member appreciates the earnest and eloquent speech of the Secretary of State this evening. Whether we agree with everything he said or not, we recognise that he is trying to serve India and Britain alike to the best of his ability. I hope that before his term of office is finished we shall see an advance towards that reconciliation of the two countries which I am sure he has at heart. Up to now we have had a series of exhortations to the Indian people which have been as sincere as that of the Secretary of State himself, but they have been exhortations on our part to the Indian people. It is very unfortunate that there is no representative of Indian feeling here to-night. He might have shattered what he felt to be our complacency. Some Indians feel that although the mountain has been in labour, while it might be an exaggeration to say that it has brought forth only a mouse, certainly it has not produced an elephant but a curious mixture, of which one part is a war-horse. Who can doubt that this White Paper has been inspired partly by the exigencies of the war itself? We are anxious that India should accept this Statement in order that she may assist us to carry on our war effort.
It is natural and right that we should make that plea, but it is right to recognise that when we make that plea we make it, as British people, to another people who are not British, but a different entity, a different nation. We must not assume that the criterion of British psychology is the one by which we must judge Indian reactions. Her reactions may be very disturbing. We may feel disconsolate because the Indian Congress

have not welcomed with open arms this earnest attempt to meet the situation. But that is not the point. If we are trying to treat India as being equal with ourselves, we must recognise that she has a point of view which is not our own. Our job is not to lecture her or to tell her that she must be reconciled to our point of view, but to recognise her dignity and equality, and to find out how we can reconcile our point of view with hers. Unless there is mutual recognition of dignity and equality, we shall not go very far. There are far too many Members of this House, and of the general public, who assume that the problems of India are either too big or too small for us to bother about during a war. I welcome this statement, because it shatters that superficial assumption. We are dealing with a country whose population is larger than that of the whole of Europe. It is well to appreciate that the largest single party of India, the Indian Congress party, is undoubtedly disappointed with this Statement.
If I may sum it up, I think I may interpret their feeling as being this: The statement simply repeats what is already known; it proposes an extension of Indian liability, without corresponding democratic responsibility; and it leaves future development shrouded in dangerous ambiguity. It is not surprising, and from our own British standpoint, it may he regrettable that Mr. Azad, the Moslem President of the Indian National Congress, has declined to meet the Viceroy and has condemned the statement that has been made as both abortive and unacceptable. I may not necessarily endorse that attitude. That is not the point. The point is that Mr. Azad is speaking on behalf of a party, which, it has been acknowledged to-night, has reached a high degree of efficiency as well as possessing a considerable following in India. Mr. Azad, in that responsible position, has felt himself bound to decline, at this juncture at least, the invitation of the Viceroy to meet him to discuss this matter.
I have said that from our British standpoint it may be regrettable. We are, as we all appreciate, grievously burdened, and any frustration of our hopes and plans inevitably disturbs us, but we would do well to remember that what may disturb us, especially now, does not necessarily disturb the Indian people in


the same way. They have their development, history and outlook, and although the psychology of the Indian people and the politicians of India may seem incomprehensible to us, it is well to realise that our psychology may seem almost incomprehensible to them. That is why I stress the important fact that we are two nations and two communities. The matter is relatively simply, if we hold that we are not equal or that a divergence could be settled by the imposition of our British will upon the Indian will. That inevitably would mean political oppression and bloodshed, which is an all too familiar and historical method of solving the strange problem of the divergence of human wills. In any case we have ourselves accepted the foundation of democracy, and whatever may be said by hon. Gentlemen on this or that side of the House in reference to the undoubted difficulties and complexities of applying democracy through the various communities of the world, the fact remains that that is our standard.
We are fighting this war because we believe in democracy. If we contend that there must be a restriction on the application of the principle of democracy, then that argument could just as well be employed by some of the terrible despots in Europe in extenuation of their suppression of democracy in Europe. Democracy must change its form from age to age and place to place, but that is very different indeed from the suggestion that democracy, in the way that we understand it here, is incapable of application in India because of her undoubted problems and complexities. We knew that all the time. When we brought forward the Government of India Bill, which ultimately became the Government of India Act, we were aware of all those complexities, and surely our task is to recognise that it is precisely those difficulties and complexities that call for a vindication of democratic principles at this juncture in the history of mankind. If we cannot solve these problems, and if we do not look out, we shall find ourselves on a pilgrimage to Berchtesgaden to worship at the shrine of those very evil things that we are seeking in this war to destroy. The essential issue, as I see it at this juncture, is that India, whether she agrees with our policy or not, is in fact in the common fight of all lovers of freedom in the world.

We should be grateful to India and compliment her and offer her our congratulations that she is saying at this moment in history, on behalf of 350,000,000 peoples, "If the strife in the world is now between despotism and democracy, well, then, vindicate that principle in India." Otherwise, there will be an inclination in certain quarters to draw a distinction between our profession of democracy in Europe and our practice of that profession in Asia. If we are to ride off on the excuse, either through British interests in India, or because of the powerful complexities in India, that we cannot apply democracy to that country in any richer way than we are doing now, then that will be looked upon as a mere moral evasion of the difficult task that confronts us at the present time.
I therefore come to the actual proposals outlined in the White Paper, and I must say it would be helpful if we could secure from the Secretary of State to-night some further and more explicit interpretation of the two main proposals which are in the statement before me. In the first place, there is to be an enlargement of the Governor-General's Council, and I echo the requests of other speakers tonight by asking by how many the Council is to be enlarged. I believe there are now seven on the Council, of whom three or four are Government nominees. Will the Council be enlarged to 15, or are we to find that only two or three will be added, who will still be in a minority? Will Indian democratic representatives predominate, or will these representatives not be democratic at all but purely nominees of the Governor-General, without any real relationship with democratic Indian opinion itself? Will the new members actually be nominees of the Governor-General, or is it impossible to visualise and consider the possibility of nomination from parties in India, or at least some kind of relationship to any kind of democratic responsibility? Will the Executive Council, enlarged as we are told it will be, be free to reach and implement decisions, or will it be merely an advisory committee to have its advice overthrown at the will of the Viceroy and, presumably at the will of this House?
What relationship will the enlarged Viceregal Council have to the proposed representative body to be set up after the war? Will there be relationship or no


relationship at all? Are the two proposals in some way dynamically connected? Will the Governor-General's Council have power to prepare for this democratic body, or is one to be an ad hoc body to cease when the war ends and the other a body to start de novo with all the difficulties of no preparation by the Viceregal Council itself? The B.B.C., the other night, broadcast a talk by a notable spokesman who actually claimed that this Executive Council will be similar to our British Cabinet. I do not know whether the Secretary of State will endorse that view, because it is quite incorrect and misleading. Our British Cabinet has a responsibility to a democratically elected Parliament, but this enlarged Viceregal Council has no responsibility whatever to any democratically elected body. The decisions of our Cabinet can be freely reached and implemented without unrepresentative interference, but this body, to be enlarged to an indefinite number, will not only be unrelated to any kind of democratic body but will be liable to interference by the Viceroy himself or an extraneous body. Therefore, I think it is misleading in the extreme to try to impress the British public with the idea that the Viceroy's Council is on all fours with the British Cabinet.
Turning briefly to other problems, there is first the representative body to be set up after the war. The reference is extremely vague—I am sure the Secretary of State will admit that. Possibly he was purposely nebulous, and I do not necessarily blame him for that. But the very ambiguity of the proposal can act either way: it can act for good, and it can act for ill. This phrase:
a body representative of the principal elements in India's national life in order to devise the framework of the new constitution
could be interpreted as meaning merely a new Round Table—of course, with a fresh tablecloth. Equally, on the other hand, in spite of the criticism of a Constituent Assembly, it could also mean that. There are times when ambiguity may be a necessary part of diplomacy, but it is also a very dangerous part, and I would ask the Secretary of State to make it clear that he does not mean by this phrase merely a new Round Table, with fresh abortive discussion, for, if so, I am quite sure, with new or old tablecloth, Indians will not sit round it.

On the other hand, I ask him, Will he rule out entirely the possibility of this body being virtually a Constituent Assembly, or some similar body? If at least he will say to-night that he does not rule that out, that may give some encouragement to virile Indian opinion. I think the House is entitled to ask whether this phrase can cover the latter as well as the former. Otherwise, we shall have as many interpretations of this phrase as there are political bodies in India and in this country. Again, I think we are entitled to ask what is meant by "the principal elements in India's national life." Will they be democratically elected or determined, or will they include those commercial and industrial elements that are related to this country?
Then again, we are entitled to ask whether this representative body to be set up after the war will be purely advisory, or will be authoritative. I am very glad indeed that my hon. Friend the right hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) did suggest that if this body is set up, it should be made quite clear that the decisions and conclusions which it reaches shall not be over-ridden by the British Parliament. I did hear, I think, a slightly audible grunt of disapproval from a bench behind me, but if that grunt of disapproval was an echo of silent disapproval on the Government Bench, all that I can say is that I regret it. I ask, therefore, that the Secretary of State should make it clear that if and when this body is set up and reaches certain conclusions, however drastic they may be, they shall be implemented without British interference—they shall be implemented because they are the conclusions of a free Indian body. Unless that is done, I am afraid that aspect alone of the projected representative body will be sufficient to endorse the criticism of it put forward in many directions.
Might I suggest, on the other hand, this? The time has arrived for even bolder and more courageous advance than has been suggested heretofore by Members of this House. If the Government want a settlement—and I believe they do—and if they are equally prepared to be as bold and resolute in the settlement of problems in India as they are in regard to the war in the West, might I suggest, first of all, that we should visualise the establishment of a truly national Indian Government, with powers and functions


equal to our own? One or two words have been dropped to-night discouraging the idea of independence. I must confess I detect a certain confusion at times. We are assured that Dominion status really means independence, that our Dominions are quite free to enter the war or not, and we have the illustrations of Ireland and South Africa. But, if that be so, why do they cavil at the word "independence"?
I want to see the greatest measure of inter-dependence between the nations of the world, but it must be a free interdependence, freely entered into. I hope very earnestly that, if India were as free as we are, India would freely choose to co-operate with us, even as I desire that other nations should freely co-operate with us. The old idea of insularity, segregating ourselves from the rest of the world, is a myth of the nineteenth century which is dying and deserves to die. International co-operation of a partial or a world character alone can supplant the evil designs of new but baser world social order which emanate from certain countries abroad. The alternative to despotic organisation must be based on free choice, and I see no reason why we should hesitate to talk of independence. It is an entire misnomer to say to Indians that they shall be perfectly free provided they choose Dominion status. That is a qualification of the very idea of freedom which is more than a paradox and which makes it nonsense. Why should we hesitate to say that the same sense of independence which we enjoy is the independence which we desire for India herself? Add to that the desire that she will in her wisdom and vision enter freely into the warmest co-operation with us, as we desire to enter into co-operation with her.
Is it impossible to suggest the conversion of the Viceregal Executive Council into a responsible democratic Government? What would happen? What happens with parties in this country? An election is held, and the majority party forms the Government. Why cannot we apply the same principle to India? We appreciate the rights of minorities, and I entirely agree that a democracy which ignores the rights of minorities cannot live. We appreciate that fact and always have done, though there have been on occasions some back-

slidings. Do we say to ourselves that, because there is a minority in this country who might possibly wish still to retain the feudalistic idea of government and organisation, Parliament must never meet, and Governments must never be formed, and we must submit to some foreign Power to dictate what we shall do? Whatever minorities they may be which still believe in some feudalistic or Fascist rule, we say to them, "You are minorities. Your legal rights shall be appreciated, but the majority party must govern." I suggest that we should apply that to India.
Therefore, I hope yet that it may be possible for the Viceregal Executive Council to be that responsible democratic Government, that real Cabinet, responsible in turn to the people, who shall have the power to compose the differences that exist. Let that Cabinet and that Government be free to negotiate on a basis of equality with our own British Government respecting immediate needs and future development. Finally, give to that body the task of preparing the responsible Assembly to which reference has been made and which will be put up after the war, with power to lay the foundations of India's freedom and independence of the future. This, I believe with all my heart and soul, would bring an instant response from the peoples of India and open up a vista of free and equal cooperation and mutual respect in place of the dissensions and resentments, the apprehensions and frustrations which unfortunately prevail now. I know the task is a very difficult one. I know that our need in this country is very great, but the greatness of the need calls for greatness of vision. I know there are problems that cannot be solved in a moment, and that certain technical changes are undesirable, but I am convinced that India would not press for those technical changes at the present time. What India wants is not merely eloquent and sincere words, but bold and courageous deeds, so that she can be treated as an equal. Certainly, she was not treated as an equal at the beginning of the war. I do not believe that India bears any grudge in that respect, but she says that if we are now penitent, we should show it by works and not merely by words.
The plan which I have briefly outlined to-night, though it involves no elaborate changes, does contain a deep and


emphatic change of mood which, if we accept it, will lead to a shaking of the moral complacency that is in the world at the present time. Mr. Gandhi, that great pacifist who, in the end, I am sure, will rank high up in the pantheon of the future, when many of the tawdry great men of the dictatorship countries are forgotten, has made a plea that if the best British and the best Indians were to come together earnestly and sincerely, they could find a formula mutually agreeable to both. In that spirit I make a plea to-night, as an Englishman, asking that we should recognise the equal status of Indians and on that basis show the world that we in this country fight for freedom not merely on the battlefield but in the world of the spirit as well.

10.17 p.m.

Dr. A. V. Hill: I had not intended to intervene in this Debate, and my intervention will be very short. I have not been in India, and I have no special knowledge of India; I feel almost impudent in speaking on the subject. I have, however, been privileged to have many Indian friends in the special fields of science and medicine, and from them I feel I know a little about the Indian people. From what I know, I am convinced that that people is particularly responsive to friendliness and frankness. I should not have intervened had I not been deeply moved by the friendliness and wisdom which were so evident in the speech of the Secretary of State. I think that we here do wish to do the just and friendly thing by India. I know that in those fields in which I have any special acquaintance with India and Indians, we and the Indians can and do co-operate. I happen to be secretary of a society, the Royal Society, to which many Indians, I know, have been proud to belong, and to which we in this country are proud at intervals to elect them. We admire their imaginative powers. I am proud myself to belong to the Indian Academy of Science.
What I am saying is not so much being said to you, Mr. Speaker, or to this House, but to my friends in India. It has never occurred to their colleagues here to doubt their sincerity. I do not believe they have ever doubted ours. Certainly, they have not behaved as if they did. Will they realise that just as scientific people in our two countries can

and do co-operate, and trust each other and work to the same ends, so co-operation and trust are possible between much wider groups in India and Britain? India has great gifts to bring to the special fields in which my friends in India work. I know that they are ready and glad, and, I think I can say, they are proud—as we are—to co-operate in those fields. If my friends in India hear this appeal to-night, I hope they will tell their countrymen. I do not believe they are without influence there; and what can be done in science and medicine can be done in other fields of co-operation. I do not believe that the details of this offer are of one-tenth of the importance of the spirit in which it is made, and the spirit in which it is received, particularly in dealing with people like those of India. I believe that the spirit in which the offer has been made is friendly and generous, and I hope and believe that the spirit in which it will be received, will be just as generous.

10.21 p.m.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: I should like, if I may, to congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Dr. Hill) on his excellent maiden speech, and to express the hope that the House will have many opportunities of hearing him. I congratulate the hon. Member especially on the fact that he had the courage not to ask for any special consideration. Very rightly, he placed confidence in his own powers. The hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) alluded to the very eloquent speeches we have had to-night, from the Secretary of State and the other speakers who followed. He said, very rightly, that if a member of the Congress Party were here to-night, he would have been struck by the general complacency. I am not a member of the Congress Party, but I cannot help being struck to a certain extent by that complacency.
I sincerely hope that the Congress Party of India will accept the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. There are one or two questions I should like to put and to which I hope we may have a reply later in the Debate. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a definition of Dominion status? The hon. Member for West Leyton seemed to think that there was very little difference between Dominion status and independence. The


right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) spoke with enthusiasm about Dominion status. I wonder whether he was thinking of Dominion status as practised in the Irish Free State? He said that during the time he had been in office he had become convinced it was necessary for the Indians to frame a Constitution. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should not be allowed to go to Dublin, because he might come back with very strange ideas from the point of view of his Ulster friends.
I should like to repeat the question of the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White), namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman can give any idea of the number of officials or Indian gentlemen who would be invited to join the Viceroy, and whether or not they would have portfolios. I understand these gentlemen will be nominated. There is no possible machinery, as the hon. Member for West Leyton seemed to suggest, for electing them. In view of the difficulty of getting papers it is hard to obtain information, but from what we understand the war effort is going on fairly well. I would remind the House that the war effort during the last war did not depend on the politicians. It has been pointed out since, that of 619,000 who volunteered for active service in addition to the Regular Forces in India, no less than 350,000 came from the Province of Punjab, with only about 22,000,000 inhabitants, and not ruled by Congress at all. I could name six other Provinces now ruled by Congress which have produced about 92,000 troops. Congress does not go into the life of the Indian people to anything like the same extent that hon. Members think it does. They seem to think that Congress is leading the Indian people in every way like the strongest political party in this country can be said to lead this country. There are elements in India who really do not care much about politics, but who have a great idea of fighting for what they consider the Empire.
I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us something more about this Round Table Conference, or, as the hon. Member for West Leyton seemed to suggest, this Constituent Assembly. I do not read that into the Viceroy's declaration. I should like to

know what that Conference consists of. I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that it consists of representatives of every phase of life in India. That means not only every phase of Indian political opinion, but every phase of Indian life in every way. There will be representatives also of European interests in India now. It will, therefore, be representative of every phase of Indian life, not only political and social, but commercial. I should like to have a reply to the suggestion which seemed to be made from the Front Bench on this side that once this Conference had made its recommendations, they would not be upset by Parliament. I hope that their recommendations will come before both Houses and be debated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Antrim wondered what the attitude of the Prime Minister was to this White Paper, and he talked of what he called the reactionary movement of five years ago. If I have any right to speak for that band of Members in both Houses who fought against the principles of the Government of India Bill, 1935, I would like to say that I resent the term "reactionary." Many of us were conversant with people of all classes in India, especially the peasant—the ryot. Our anxiety was to see that he got a fair deal, and that he was not handed over in the name of pseudo-democracy to people who did not understand him. That is what we fought for. I am not ashamed to be a diehard. It is an honoured name in the Army, and it would be an honoured name in politics if people only knew what its origin was. A diehard is a man who believes in his own principles and stands up for them and is not ashamed of them. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer these questions, because, as we have heard, half statements in the House are liable to be quoted later, to the public detriment.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I hope to take up less than three minutes of the time of the House, and I only venture to stand up because I happen to be one of those Members who in the past have criticised the slowness with which the Government have brought India along the road towards Dominion status. I want nevertheless to say on this occasion how very much I hope that all the principal parties in India will accept


to-night's Debate and the document upon which it is based as a real, genuine step forward. There are two or three hard practical facts which I feel have not been brought out sufficiently in this Debate. Several hon. Members have pointed out that it is no more to the interest of India than of ourselves that we should be defeated. I do not think people realise sufficiently the extent to which we are now involved in two wars as a result of the disappearance of France from the battlefield, one war West of Gibraltar and one war East of Suez. It seems to me essential that while Great Britain must be the centre from which we fight the war West of Gibraltar, India will be the centre from which we fight the war East of Suez, and that does mean that we cannot—we cannot—afford a breakdown in India now.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said in his speech this evening—which made me for one wish that we had a microphone in this House, because I believe that if it had been heard in India it would have done a great deal of good—that we have in this country at the present time a Government which does represent the main currents of opinion in this country, and it seems clear that that Government is not at the present time going any further in the direction of independence for India. But this document does mark a great step forward, and I do hope that the responsible parties in India will realise that fact. The progressive parties in India, who want to make rapid progress towards independence or Dominion status, whichever it is, and I personally sympathise with them, cannot get any further by refusing the offers contained in this document. If they were to refuse these offers, they would only be losing, I fear, many friends over here, because many people here who sympathise with the Indian march towards Dominion status will feel that they are only weakening our national effort at a time of the greatest crisis we have ever lived through. India can get much more by accepting, and it seems to me that, as far as the future is concerned, this Viceroy's document is as good as anybody could reasonably expect.
I do hope that, in winding up the Debate, the Secretary of State will be able to make it a little clearer that if the miracle should happen, if, while the war

is still on, the principal groups in India can work out the basis of their future status, we shall not then say, "Well, nothing can be done until after the war is finished." It is surely impossible, if that were to happen, that we should say, "You must wait till the war is over," but it might be helpful if the Secretary of State could make that clear at the present time. Obviously the reasonable elements in the Congress Party are going to have a very difficult time if they accept this document, and if, as I hope, in response to the tone of this Debate, all the Indian parties do sink their partial interests and affections because they realise that we are up against a common enemy, I trust that we in this House will in turn show our gratitude, and personally I believe, after hearing the speech of the Secretary of State, that we should in that way show our gratitude.

10.34 p.m.

Sir Stanley Reed: I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) in one respect, and that is that I shall not address any exhortations to the people of India in my few remarks to-night. But I am not going to follow him in another respect, and that is to suggest that by a stroke of the pen the whole existing Constitution of the Government of India should be radically scrapped and a new one set up in its place by Executive order, because that is really the purport of his recommendations with regard to the Executive Council of the Governor-General. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, with his brilliance, insight and knowledge, must be strengthened by the conviction that he has behind him, in the policy towards India which he has adumbrated, the whole-hearted support of almost every element in this House, for a great development of the Indian Constitution.
The ground has been cleared, of recent months, to an extraordinary extent. We all accept the goal of Dominion status in India, with the full implications as of the Statute of Westminster. If a majority of the peoples of India do not like Dominion status, I for one would never boggle at the word "independence." I prefer "Dominion status," or rather, as the White Paper puts it, a free and equal partnership, because I regard it as something far higher than independence. It


contains all the pith and substance of independence, and embodies the greatest freedom of political development, in constitutional structure, and at the same time brings to the preservation and the security of their social order all the strength of the Commonwealth, of which, in any part of the world, it must stand in urgent need now and in the years before us. If we follow Lord Salisbury's advice, and look at large-scale maps, we shall have to ask ourselves over and over again what independence would mean to any part of the Commonwealth at the present time. So we accept that goal now so clearly defined and bend our energies to the consideration of the step immediately before us, of getting the whole-hearted support of India for the prosecution of the war.
We have this two-fold Measure: an expansion of the Governor-General's Executive Council and the formation of a War Advisory Council. With all respect, I hope that my right hon. Friend will turn a very deaf ear to suggestions about the Executive Council, poured upon him by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen).This body is an administrative and not a debating body. The idea of expanding it to large proportions is impracticable. The proposal is to bring into that high executive body representative men, commanding the widest possible public confidence, who could not be elected but must be nominated by the Viceroy on the advice and recommendation of the principal representative organisations whose members will take an equal part in bringing to those deliberations a freshness and knowledge which come from contact with the problem, without undermining the whole Constitution of India as by law established.
We all cordially approve proposals to set up a War Advisory Council. It is one of the misfortunes of our long connection with India that we have too long excluded all Indians, outside the Administration, from any knowledge of the great problems of defence and of foreign affairs. When we hand over a greater measure of responsibility to the Indians, they would otherwise take over these immense problems, without the knowledge and training which come from inside experience. On these grounds, I warmly commend those two wise interim Measures. It is clearly

understood and laid down in emphatic terms, in the White Paper, and endorsed by the Secretary of State for India tonight, that these are interim measures. Everybody recognises the necessity of an interim period, including the leaders of opinion in India, and its Radical side of politics; we are all agreed that, amid the tremendous problems of war it is inconceivable that we should bring ourselves to the immense task of actually framing a new Constitution. A valuable part of the White Paper is this definite assurance that the new Constitution will be primarily framed by Indians in India—that it will be their duty and primarily their responsibility to develop a constitutional framework for their great country. I hope, however, that when that body is constituted, assistance will be given by a representative body of this House, because I think it would have something to give from its rich experience here which would be of the greatest benefit in assisting the Indians to frame the principles of their own Constitution.
I would ask my right hon. Friend to give serious attention to this point. He and others have spoken of the atmosphere of suspicion which obtains in India. It may be entirely unreasonable. However, it is painfully obvious that it does exist to some extent, and we have to ask ourselves why it exists and what we can do to get rid of it. If the hour were not late, I might touch upon some of the disappointments which have led to this unfortunate survival of suspicion in India. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) asked a very pertinent question: What is to become of the recommendations or the conclusions of this body when they were reached? When he said that he thought they ought to be substantially implemented by Parliament, an hon. Member behind him said, "Oh!" From my knowledge of India, I think that in many respects that is one of the biggest questions which we have to face at this time. If you are going to ask India to accept an interim form of government and to throw her whole enthusiasm and energy into the prosecution of this war, with a promise that later on a body will be set up to frame a Constitution of their own but without any assurance that the principles of that Constitution, if they carry a general measure of agreement, will be implemented by this House, are you not


doing the very thing which is least likely to dissipate suspicion and which may, indeed, intensify it? The final decision must rest with this House. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, in winding up this Debate, he cannot give the assurance that the essential principles of the Constitution, framed by so representative a body as he forecast, if they are reached by a substantial measure of agreement, shall be implemented by this House. It may be argued that one Government cannot bind its successors; and that one Parliament cannot say what a later Parliament will do. In normal circumstances that might be correct. But this is not a normal Government or House of Commons. We have a Government more representative of all elements in this House and the country than any of us have known in our political experience. Surely such a Government can give this assurance!
There is another point which I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend for his consideration. We know to-day the very great and almost priceless service which India is rendering to the prosecution of the war in the East. I was in India during the whole of the last war, and I remember only too well how such manufacturing facilities as existed were strained almost to breaking point, to provide material for Mesopotamia and East Africa. Now, in their factories they are pouring out a great volume of material for our forces in the East, which must be of enormous value. Behind the clash of politics lies an intense interest in our war effort; a full appreciation of the moral purposes of our great crusade, and a great desire to assist it to the point of victory. In this inevitable interim period, are we to allow all that to remain fluid, with the possibility that as much will flow in the wrong direction as will flow in the right direction?
It has been said that the preparation for the final constitutional adjustment was mainly a question for the Indians themselves. With all deference, I say that that is not so. That is entirely opposed to the whole conception of government amongst the people of India. The people there expect the Government to govern: they expect the Government to administer, and they expect the Government to lead. They think that in this matter the Government should lead

opinion towards the creation and the carrying through of the preparatory work, leading to a great representative Assembly after the war, which will put the seal on that work. That is entirely my own opinion, and whenever I meet Indians who have studied these questions I find that they are of exactly the same view, that the Government should give a lead, and that the preparatory work should begin now. That has been crystallised in the scheme, which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend has seen, which was drawn up by that very great and distinguished Indian, Sir Sikander Hyat Khan, the Chief Minister of the Punjab. He has outlined a scheme for a representative body to undertake that preliminary work. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen it. He urged reconstitution of the provincial Ministries and the appointment of their Prime Ministers as a nucleus and that there should be representatives of the Congress, the Muslim League, the Hindus, the Liberal Federation, the Sikhs, the Christians, the Indian States and the Europeans with a few nominated members, making a body of 31 in all; and that they should sit under the leadership of the Viceroy, in order to study the preliminaries, and, through that, not only to pave the ground for the work which is to be done, but to assist in dispelling the suspicion that we are not in real earnest in our desire to carry the programme through.
To ask the Viceroy, with his tremendous preoccupations, to undertake that work, is, I think, asking too much of him, but there is one man in India who is eminently fitted for it, Sir Maurice Gwyer, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court. Apart from his legal knowledge, he commands tremendous confidence in India, and he is fitted to lead a preliminary inquiry of that sort, which would not only he valuable in itself, but would, I am certain, implement substantially the undertakings which have been given. If that preliminary work were started without delay, those forces in India would no longer entertain the suspicions which rather obscure Indian views. The interesting point in that speech which may have struck some Members for the first time was when he spoke of India as the bridge between Great Britain and the Far East. Look at the map of Asia and of the World, and the cultural and


political significance of India becomes more than ever apparent. It has drawn its inspiration from our literature, our science and our political thought and history. It stands to-day as one great representative of these great principles. I am sure that no one realises more clearly than India how intensely her whole future is bound up in the victory of Great Britain in this war. I find no dissenting note in India in appreciation of the purposes which lay behind us in the war, and therefore I have ventured from my own experience to make these few suggestions, which I think, may carry us still further forward in that unanimity of thought, purpose and action to which my right hon. Friend has set his great abilities, and behind whom we stand in assisting him to the maximum of our power to carry them through.

10.52 p.m.

Major Milner: I do not propose to detain the House very long, but as one who, some in years ago, visited India as a representative of the Government of this country and of this House, and who has since taken part in the Constitutional discussions, I should like to add a few words to what has already been said. Like most of those who have spoken, I wish to pay tribute not only to the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India, but also to his understanding and to the human view that he seemed to take of the matters committed to his charge. I am sorry to say that I cannot pay the same compliment to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill), who has now returned to his seat. He seemed to endeavour to put up as many difficulties as possible. I sincerely hope that he did not acquire that art or knowledge in the India Office. If I may say so, without offence, I attribute it perhaps to his Ulster extraction.
This is not the occasion for long speeches but for such constructive support as we can give in this House to the undoubted effort which the Government are making, and have made since the commencement of the war, to obtain a settlement in India to the great advantage of India itself, and, in my view, to the advantage of the common cause for which at heart, I believe, India stands with us. I do not think the desirability

of such a settlement will be denied anywhere in the world except perhaps in Germany and Italy. The White Paper which we are discussing to-night is the third White Paper which has been issued since the commencement of the war. Each of those White Papers, in my view, marks a further advance and surely the very fact that the Government are persevering, is evidence of their concern in regard to the matter. I think in India and here we must all recognise that the tone and spirit of the White Paper are excellent and an improvement on the tone and spirit of some previous White Papers on India.
There are, however, two or three matters in which I think some help may be afforded. I wish it were possible—and I hope it may be at no distant date—for the Government to re-state their war aims and especially disavow what is known as Imperialism, which, I know, has been previously disavowed. Some statement appealing particularly to India would, I feel, be a great help not only there but throughout the world.

Mr. McKie: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman state a little more clearly what he means by "Imperialism"?

Major Milner: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I much prefer that the Government should re-state their war aims rather than that I should begin to do so now. As I was saying, I think it would also help if the Government could give the assurances which were asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Reed), than whom no one has a greater knowledge of India. They were: Do the Government intend to implement whatsoever decisions may be come to by the representative body which is to be called together? Then I think an effort ought to be made to call that representative body together now or, at any rate, as soon as possible.
I do not think there is any justification for the words "conclusion of the war" which appear so prominently in the White Paper and, I believe, so prominently in the minds of Indians who have read them. Is it not possible to devise some means whereby the added members of the Viceroy's Council could have some representative capacity now in the sense


that they have been nominated or selected by those whom they represent? I cannot believe it is beyond the capacity of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers to devise some means whereby assent, not, indeed, election or nomination by various bodies in India, could be obtained for Indians to act as additional members of the Viceroy's Council. To the Indians—if I may presume to address them, and I hope I still have some friends there—I would say I feel sure that they need have no fear as to the term "Dominion Status." The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) is, I think, the only diehard left in the House—

Sir A. Knox: There are very many others, but they have other engagements.

Major Milner: At any rate, my hon. and gallant Friend is dying hard. The exact meaning of the term "Dominion status" may trouble him, but I hope it need not trouble the Indian people. The right hon. Gentleman himself has, to some extent, defined it as a free and full partnership, and I would ask them also to recognise something in our tradition. It is, as we all know, our habit to proceed step by step. Our own Constitution, our own freedom, have been built up in that way, and, once having gone forward, we have never reversed our steps.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—.[Mr. Grimston]

Major Milner: I hope therefore that the Government will meet the wishes of those who speak for the Indian people to the greatest possible extent, and I believe that anything they can do to that end will be reciprocated. And to the leaders of Indian thought I would respectfully suggest what in my view might be the very greatest and most valuable measure of statesmanship possible. If India could come into our present struggle with a full mind and a full heart, I believe that that would do more than anything else to break down every barrier which at present stands in the way of all that the Indian people desire. We are fighting not only for our own lives and our own freedom, but for the lives and freedom in the widest sense of all peoples, and certainly

of those in India. India's destiny, like our own, is in the melting-pot, and I plead for the fullest measure of generosity, co-operation and statesmanship on both sides in the present situation.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I do not think this is an occasion for long and controversial speeches, because I think everyone should be careful not to add to the difficulties of my right hon. Friend. He has himself emphasized how very great the difficulties are in the way of the settlement of the Indian problem, and he has also shown us that he does not propose to dwell too much on those difficulties, because he is optimistic enough to believe that the problem can be solved. He himself, by his very wise, sympathetic, helpful, and constructive speech, made a very valuable contribution towards peace in India.
My hon. Friend the member for Bridgwater (Mr. Bartlett) regretted that it had not been possible for the speech of my right hon. Friend to be heard in India. I suggest that there is an even greater contribution which my right hon. Friend can make to the settlement of the Indian problem than he has made hitherto, and that is that he should himself go out to India and meet the representatives of the various Indian communities and find out whether it is possible for a way out of the present impasse to be found.
I believe there is nobody more able or more likely to do this than my right hon. Friend. I make no reflection on the Viceroy or anybody else who is to be responsible for the negotiations in India, but I believe that if my right hon. Friend could adopt this suggestion, it would have a great psychological effect, and he would be able to convince the representatives of Indian opinion of the sincerity of our intentions, and he would have the opportunity of understanding, through coming face to face, the Indian point of view perhaps better than we do now. For there is an Indian point of view, and obviously if we are to settle this problem, we have to realise that. There is a saying of the Latin poet with which my right hon. Friend will he familiar, namely, that it is lawful to be taught even by an enemy. One of the lessons we can learn in successful negotiation from Hitler is that, if you really want to


arrive at a settlement with some other Power, you must send your best and most capable representative That is something that Hitler has done, and he has achieved success over us because we have not followed that practice. I want to ask my right hon. Friend whether he will not give careful consideration to the suggestion I have made. I believe there never was a time when we were more necessary to India or India more necessary to us. I believe there never was an occasion when the atmosphere for a peaceful settlement of the Indian problem was better, and we never had a Secretary of State for India who was more fitted by character and tradition to solve the problem.

11.6 p.m

Mr. Amery: I rise with the permission of the House to answer some of the questions which have been addressed to me and to clear up, if I can, some of the points with which obviously I did not deal adequately in my opening speech. A number of questions have been addressed to me in regard to the numbers, composition and powers of the enlarged Executive Council. As regards numbers, that, of course, must depend to some extent on the nature of the response that is made to the Viceroy's offer, but in any case that involves an appreciable enlargement of the present numbers of the Executive. The new members will be on a footing of entire equality with existing members of the Council. They will hold definite portfolios, and they will exercise the responsibilities both of their important departmental work and of the influence which they will naturally, exert in the collective discussions of the Viceroy's Council. They are not, of course, nominees of parties, but, on the other hand, obviously it is implicit in the whole purpose of the Viceroy's policy that they should be representative of the parties from which they are selected, and they will, no doubt, be selected after discussion and consideration of names informally submitted. They will not, in a strict constitutional sense, be responsible to the Assembly, but, clearly, if there is the response which the Viceroy hopes for and if all the leading parties are represented, the Executive will enjoy a wide measure of confidence and support in the Assembly. On the other hand, I cannot accept, for reasons which I have already given, the suggestion of

the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) that the enlarged Executive can be converted at a time like this into a Parliamentary Ministry responsible to a majority in Parliament. That involves a complete inversion of the present Indian Constitution and, what is more, prejudges all the constitutional problems which are still entirely unresolved as between the parties. That is not in present circumstances a practical suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) raised the question of what is to follow in the case of the Provinces. That naturally must depend again very largely upon the nature of the response at the centre, and the way the new development at the centre works out. Clearly, that will have its effect upon the Provinces and must be judged in the light of the results at the centre. My right hon. Friend also asked questions about the function and numbers of the War Advisory Council. That will be a considerable larger body, with some 20 or more members. Its function will be to bring together a wide range of experience and special knowledge all over India, in order, on the one hand, to inform and advise the Government of India as regards the conduct of India's war effort and the development of India's resources, and, on the other hand, to stimulate further the war effort in the various fields, geographical or industrial, from which the members of the Advisory Council will be drawn.

Sir H. O'Neill: Will they be purely Indian members?

Mr. Amery: Obviously, the European industrial and commercial community is a community of considerable importance and, I imagine, entitled to be considered at any rate for representation on this wider body. The great thing is that this wider body should assemble for the assistance and guidance of the Government of India their special knowledge in every important field of India's national life and in turn exercise their influence upon the war effort in every field. Many questions have been asked about the nature of the constitution of the future body that is to consider and frame the Constitution of India after the war, described in the White Paper as
a body representative of the principal elements in India's national life.


I pointed out in my speech that that must mean a body arrived at by agreement between those principal elements, but so long as that agreement is achieved, it is not for me here to prescribe the nature of that body. In answer to the question addressed to me, I would certainly say that there is no type of body that is ruled out, provided it is agreed upon by those principal elements and is in that sense representative of those elements. As to the position of that body and its recommendations, I think the White Paper does make perfectly clear what it is. It is to be
a body which is to devise the framework of the new constitution, and His Majesty's Government, in sympathy with the desire that the new constitution should be the responsibility of Indians themselves and should originate from Indian conceptions of the social, economic and political structure of Indian life, are prepared to give to that desire the fullest practical expression, subject to due fulfilment of certain obligations.
Clearly that does not mean that this body will be a mere Round Table Conference or Commission whose views may or may not be taken into serious consideration. Its object is to start a new Indian Constitution in the same spirit as that in which the Constitution of the Dominions was done. In each case it was agreement among the various elements in the Dominion that created and brought about the main framework of a Constitution.
That Constitution was then discussed, and in certain particulars in every case there were adjustments and modifications, not by dictation, but, if I may quote the words used by Lord Zetland in another place not long ago, by discussion and negotiation. Of course, in this particular case there is a number of points arising out of our historic obligations which will require such adjustment and discussion if they are not fully provided for. The whole intention is that the work of this body shall be taken seriously and that it shall provide the main framework of the future Constitution of India.

Sir A. Knox: Will the recommendations of this body finally come before this House?

Mr. Amery: Yes, Sir, exactly as in the case of the various Dominions. Our endeavour is to apply the same method which has been followed in the case of the other Dominions. In each of those cases the Constitution came before this

House for discussion and was given the constitutional ratification which this House is entitled to give. My right hon. Friend also asked a question in regard to the Princes. Our obligations to the Princes in so far as they have not fully entered into the new Constitution scheme will, of course, remain unaffected. These are standing obligations just as in the case of the Dominion of South Africa, where there was an obligation in respect of certain territories continuing after the creation of the new Dominion.
As to the intermediate preparations for the meeting of that body, I think the hon. Member for West Leyton asked whether the enlarged Executive were to be a body to begin preliminary work. They certainly have not been selected for that purpose, and have very definite and important duties which they are to perform. At the same time, I would quote the words of the White Paper:
His Majesty's Government hope that in this process"—
I am talking of the process of co-operation in the war effort by the enlarged Executive and by the War Advisory Council—
new bonds of union and understanding will emerge, and thus pave the way towards the attainment by India of that free and equal partnership which remains the proclaimed and accepted goal of the Imperial Crown and the British Parliament.
In the atmosphere of co-operation, instead of differences which have been intensified by what I might call a long-range political cannonading of the parties at each other, we may get another perspective, in the light of the greater consciousness of India's unity in the world. If that task of investigation, study and discussion is begun now, the further it is carried, the more thoroughly it is worked out, obviously the more speedily can the actual reconstruction of the Government of India take place afterwards. Clearly we cannot recast the whole of an Empire in the midst of a life-and-death struggle. This must be something which must arise out of agreement with the Indians themselves. That does not mean that we should wash our hands of it and set it aside. On the contrary, as the White Paper again says, His Majesty's Government will not only welcome, but promote, in any way possible, every sincere, practical step that may be taken. We shall certainly make every


effort to encourage the horses to go to the water, but it may not always be in our power to make them drink.
That brings me to one note which very largely ran through the speech of the hon. Member for West Leyton. I entirely agree with him that it is our business to try to understand India's outlook and deal with it, not from the point of view of a superior dealing with an inferior, but as equal dealing with equal. On the other hand, I think he greatly oversimplified the problem when he suggested that this was a question of whether the will of this country should be imposed upon the will of India. It is far more a question of reconciling conflicting wills in India. At present that conflict of wills is still unresolved and still very serious. We must not underestimate the seriousness of those difficulties, or believe that they can be brushed aside by treating India as if it were a homogeneous country like this, and as if those great elements, elements running into tens of millions, can be regarded as those continually fluctuating minorities with which we are accustomed to deal in this country. They are stubborn facts that have to be fitted somehow into the composite mosaic of India's future Constitution. At the same time, I believe sincerely that there is enough of a wider patriotism and of statesmanship in India to resolve these differences and these difficulties. It is to that statesmanship in India that we have to look in these matters. We can contribute our share of statesmanship, good will and understanding. I am well disposed to

believe that India will also contribute her share and that, out of our joint efforts there may emerge something of which Britons and Indians alike can be proud for generations to come, and which may make its contribution, not only to the permanent strength and prosperity of our own British Commonwealth, but also, by its example, to the regeneration of a distressed world.

11.25 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: Before my right hon. Friend sits down will he be good enough to answer one more question or listen to one more plea? It is a note which has not been struck before this evening. When he is choosing or advising the Viceroy as to the choice of those representatives of the national life of India, as a whole, he will not, I am sure, forget the importance of having the women of India represented as well as the men. He will remember, I hope, the often-quoted words in the report of Sir John Simon many years ago that the women of India hold the key of progress, and their influence on the future life of India would be uncalculably great. Does not that view hold at the present time, and is it not desirable that what might prove to be a reconciling influence should be brought into these new discussions?

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.